Ray. I think you would have been better served studying Twain rather than Aristotle. He understood democracy but Aristotle did not, never having encountered one. You likewise.
Greece was not a democracy, We are told it is as part of the control narrative.
Only 19% of Greeks had a vote, those whose both parents were Athenian born. Women, aliens, slaves, and others had no say. Thus, Aristotle was referring to a corrupt system bearing the Greek name for it. The terms People Power, Decisions by Consensus Protocols, Multilateralism, and Anarchy are more accurate. As the Irish Monks, Twain, Thomas Paine, Lord Acton, and Abraham Lincoln could tell you, genuine democracy is "Government of the people, by the people and for the people". What this means in today's parlance is that all the people, fully informed., have the opportunity to formulate neighbourhood, regional and national policy, to whatever depth they feel comfortable with. As Paine put it, "All authority resides in the people". Another way to say this is the Basic Human Right to Self Determination.
The elites have told you that democracy is electing some corrupt tosser to do your thinking for you, and you bought it; as did we all. There were many democracies around the world and because all those books describing these were burned in 2003 (in Australia anyway), you no longer have access to history.
But I know you will reject this which is why I am so reluctant to go into it.
Reject what exactly? That a democracy is supposed to be of the people, by the people and for the people? Familiar words, only it doesn't exactly work out that way, does it ? Which is why in theory a constitutional republic is supposed to solve the problem of fifty one percent voting away rights or voting themselves benefits from the public trough. In fact every government eventually becomes an oligarchy/kleptocracy/kakistocracy/tyranny given time. Then there is collapse and the whole dreary thing starts all over again.
Boy, are you dumb. The plutocrats call oligarchy a democracy and so you conclude democracy does not work.
I prefer to avoid conversations with Americans because your indoctrination runs so deep you cannot find your way out. The more logical course for me is to wait until the US implodes and then chat with the prepper survivors. They, at least, live in the real world.
Meanwhile, dwell on this. Last time I looked. which was a decade ago, the US was 39th on the global literacy scale. It must have plummeted since then.
Yes, the plutocrats call oligarchy a democracy. I pretty much said that. Yes, democracy doesn't work for the reasons I gave. thanks for the insult. Regards.
I wish more people understood the difference between a Democracy and a Constitutional Republic. But I have to agree with your comments on where we are currently at. Welfare was abused to the Nth degree. Probably designed that way as everything "they" create has an ulterior goal, and its not for the good of the people. Stealing from the working to give to the non-working who'll never contribute to society. Why should they? I also wish people understood that the government doesn't produce a damn thing, other than problems. What sickens me most is when any politician claims they will tax the rich. Never seen that happen in my lifetime. Its long past the time of quenching the Tree of Liberty. Allowing anyone who wants to inhabit our country for freebies is a major, major mistake. More burden on us tax payers. If only these illegals knew they're next on the kill list.
Oct 10, 2023·edited Oct 11, 2023Liked by Ray Horvath, "The Source" :)
years ago I had a conversion with a government worker. He wanted to tax the rich. It didn't go exactly this way but this is what happened. I asked him how much he made. He gave me a figure. I then asked what are the rich. He answered anyone who makes more than me.
LOL - I work part time plus receive Social Security. Would MUCH rather not work anymore, but unfortunately, I have to support the rich and the bottom feeders. I think those on Welfare and other government programs make far than many of us with all the perks they receive, yet they still complain about "privileges". Oh, don't let me forget to mention stealing from stores and not being arrested, i.e. the cost of groceries and other items hitting the ceiling.
2. military-aged males, probably trained for private/secret armies;
3. the "rubble," used for experiments and test runs in death camps.
The people are nearly always ignored by the powerful, but I still remember Sweden having a 90 percent income tax on those, who made a lot of money, but the problem is now moot with all their illegals taking over their country. Nazi Germany was another exception.
Thank you, Marta. If you are a simpleton, so am I. I've been saying it from the beginning that the problem is human nature, and if history started over a million times, it would always end like this. The problem is that all civilizations follow the same timetable and after a final centralization, they collapse, and another takes over. This time, there is not "another." In the meanwhile, all civilizations follow the same structural pattern and have the same strata in their demography:
What puzzles me is why do they keep coming here? I'd think the word would get out to their people, so they must know about these nefarious activities. No wonder why Hillary and Slick Willy are still kicking. They both look physically unwell........
I'm not writing in order to convince anyone, but to inspire thinking. Those who make up their minds are harder to manipulate and cannot blame others for their decisions.
I approve of inspiring others to think, but if you're convinced of something then the point of voicing it would be either to convince others of it or to have others disabuse you of it, wouldn't it? Do you agree that if you and someone else disagree about something then exactly one of you is mistaken, which is potentially perilous for whichever of the two that is? (I hope I've kept your discussion rules, which I haven't read yet.)
It depends on the problem being discussed. The short answer is "no," most of the time, but here is the explanation.
Most problems are not exclusively logical, so they cannot be solved by logic alone. Truth judgment usually happens at the cognitive level from which it originates or it is overwritten by a higher level:
Moreover, in order to agree with your assumption, I'd have to be a gnostic, but the simplicity of human cognition rules out gnosis, that is, full knowledge of anything. In fact, when people communicate with each other, they usually use culturally-encoded models that function only within their culture, and even there, functionality is severely limited.
In order to set up a discussion, the criteria from my article must be met first.
The only way out of the freemason crystal maze is to build a new system from scratch with the following keynotes:
Money: it’s a bad idea that Government has a monopoly of anything, especially currency. Anything of worth should be legal tender, even vouchers, IOUs, warrants, etc. Communities should be entitled to run their own monetary system, based on real assets. No only gold, silver, copper, platinum, lithium, precious metals and minerals, but also barter vouchers such as a pound/kg of flour, a gallon/liter of gasoline, human hours, distance transported (humans, volume, weight, special care).
Townhall Direct Democracy: votes should never be anonymous. Face to face contact is important in an era of deep fake and fake news, but even more for accountability. Representative democracy isn’t necessary if there are efficient and safe voting systems. You represent yourself, though you have the power to delegate your voting power to different representatives for different topics/mandates for a limited time and recover it whenever you want, even before the period is over.
Direct spending: those that vote believing that their votes count, also believe that they have to obey and endure whatever “their” representative government commands, because they voted for it. This can easily be solved by constitutional restrictions with severe punishment for any violation, especially, spending more than income should be forbidden and jailed. But that won’t stop the corruption, therefore we need direct spending: the federal, state and county incomes are divided by all the inhabitants (including the unborn), and you get to decide where every single proportionate cent is going to be spend in public goods and services. There’s a Spanish saying: “the eye of the master, fattens the cattle”. Direct spending would reduce bureaucracy, corruption, inefficiency, waste, unmet needs and government spending in things that are not a priority for the people. Deficit and borrowing should be illegal. After some years of solving critical problems, people will find harder to justify projects with low socio-economic net present value or internal rate of return, thus surplus would be returned to tax payers, and eventually, taxes lowered: it seems to be the only realistic mechanism to stop the spiral of government deficit and debt, where banksters take hostage future generations and politicians have nothing to lose by increasing spending and everything to win in terms of each group of voters thinking they are taking advantage of their politician/party by receiving more than the rest (e.g. detaxing the rich!).
Brutal transparency: reps should live stream at all possible times (not only working hours). All budgets, bids and transactions should be open for online scrutiny.
Democratic justice: community courts should be formed by people: the number of judges in the court is decided by the community. They could be elected for a certain period by chance or by vote, from a list of those capable of interpreting texts or from a list of lawyers. The same, for higher appeal courts. There’s no true democracy if natural law, including natural human rights, isn’t above the Constitution.
The police should be a local force. The captain should be elected.
The penitentiary system should be community based and directed towards reformation and paying back damages. House arrest or fenced working zones should be the norm.
My little contribution to the discussion:
The 2020 and 2022 rigged and stolen elections (it’s the machines!):
What I can see it that the invisible powers that are using the choke hold on governments by controlling the money supply is using front groups (Masons, Jesuits, Zionists, and the like) as patsies or useful idiots.
Yup, I never understood how blood-sweat-tears an' some good thinkin' gave us (at the start) a purdy decent republic (on paper...) and a good blueprint to refer to fer keepin' it... an' the damned finger-painters (who erased a lotta elegant John Hancocks...) made a mess've the whole thing--smeared it, mangled it, and "fer simplicity" told everyone we had a DEMOCRACY as if that was a "good thing" to spread around like manure! (how Francis Bacon knew about manure makes me "wunder...") Since that time it's indeed been a lot've manure--an' sadly not the organic kind from which GOOD things grow!
Helots wern't part of Sparta a small town in Laconia. They were the subjects of Sparta elsewhere.
But to be honest I am a complete atheist on Sparta. The big town at the time in that region was Argos not Sparta (a small village according to the Iliad). I think Sparta was a complete invention after the fact.
«For years now, Westerners have been living in democratic societies in which this quite unreliable mode of political control is taken to mean everything to all people. Hence, being undemocratic is tantamount to being criminal – because the government of equals is sacrosanct, and considered as built upon moral principle on the same level of “Thy shall not kill!” commandment.
Yet, there’s nothing intrinsically morally binding in democracy, as much as there’s no such thing as ‘government of equals.’
People fall into this illusion because of an assumption that political life and – even more so – the legal system are the ultimate playgrounds of good and evil, whereas they most certainly are not. There were, and there are, authoritarian regimes which on average, weigh upon the shoulders of far better men than those inhabiting so-called ‘developed’ nations and modern democracies.
To add insult to injury, people leading the actual contemporary democracies don’t actually suffer challenge to their power. The ideal about which we are speaking of is a fig leaf – and rather a small one – concealing something called oligarchy.
In this sense, I never had illusions about actual democracies. But, as a political atheist, I also never believed in the ideal of democracy which is properly an object of political theology: the thought that relies upon premise that man and society can be essentially, revolutionary, transformed.
When observing the acts of masses of humanity, I find it obvious that “people’s will” is often far better suited to organize a lynching party rather than to rule itself. But this doesn’t in the least fill me with resentment towards my fellow men. Sometimes anger, sometimes sorrow – most often resignation – but never resentment. However bad they can get, the moment you feel yourself as somehow morally superior, I bet you dime to a dollar that one of them will surprise you and put you to shame by act of selflessness. And then, one is obliged to remember that everything he says about human beings, he also says about himself.
That said… The Democratic Man can have none of this. Either you are damned, or you are the Saint. […] The dangerous man, however, is the true believer in democracy; the real villain and enemy of democracy is the one who evangelises and worships it, and at one moment begins to lose his faith. Or gets radicalized in it. […]»
Aristocrats, Ray. Aristotle favored Aristocrats. Aristocracy, in theory, is the next-best constitution after monarchy (because the ruling minority will be the best-qualified to rule), but in practice Aristotle preferred a kind of constitutional democracy, for what he called “polity” is a state in which rich and poor respect each other’s rights and the best-qualified citizens rule with the consent of all.
We tend to think of our Founders in light of legendary history of this nation as quasi-Aristocrats. And many were. As was the creation of Federal power to favor the merchant class and landholders. An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States argues that the structure of the Constitution of the United States was motivated primarily by the personal financial interests of the Founding Fathers. Beard contends that the authors of The Federalist Papers represented an interest group themselves. More specifically, Beard contends that the Constitutional Convention was attended by, and the Constitution was therefore written by, a "cohesive" elite seeking to protect its personal property (especially federal bonds) and economic standing. Beard examined the occupations and property holdings of the members of the convention from tax and census records, contemporaneous news accounts, and biographical sources, demonstrating the degree to which each stood to benefit from various Constitutional provisions. Beard pointed out, for example, that George Washington was the wealthiest landowner in the country, and had provided significant funding towards the American Revolution. Beard traces the Constitutional guarantee that the newly formed nation would pay its debts to the desire of Washington and similarly situated lenders to have their costs refunded.
Let me drop my two pennies into the cookie jar, too. :)
The ancient Greeks were the first known "superior race," at least the way they held themselves higher than anyone else. Aristotle definitely propagated that, and it's only human nature. Yes, if you will, Aristotle was an elitist, but in the same sense, so are you, and so am I, except we don't assign ourselves to a clan. Also, you are talking about the "rich and the poor," when about 70 percent of the people around him were slaves...
Federal power only followed the footsteps of the East and the West India Companies, and kept the same financing sources.
I am not mesmerized by the "Founding Fathers," but they said and did a few things right; in fact, more than most governments have ever done. As you know, I favor the Articles of Confederation over the Constitution, but I also agree with you that The Constitution only set up the country on the path that is about to end soon...
In my understanding, the ideal form of government relies on the upper middle class, and keeps doing that despite any form of social mobility. Such a government would be a real feat to achieve, because all civilizations eventually end up with centralization of power that leads to their collapse. To me, it has gotten to the point of being boring.
All "revolutions" use the peasants to fight for a new ruling class. End of story.
Feb 10, 2023·edited Feb 10, 2023Liked by Ray Horvath, "The Source" :)
I think the Jews were before the Greeks in elite superiority complexes.
The frame of the story of Independence really requires noticing the living standard of the Colonies was higher than the Mother country. Then opinions regarding a German King. And the Albany plan of Union. And other complexities of the British Empire and international Masonry.
Collapse from a TV window looks boring. From real life not so much. We have not come of age in nations torn by war at home like Yugoslavia say-not yet. I do expect our Union dissolving is more like the dissolving of the Empire of Alexander than the Soviet Collapse. Or maybe a mix of both. Generals going their own way as several centers of power disagree on who is boss. This could happen any day or postpone for dozens of years until the right mass psychosis triggers the unrest.
I am in the end of the opinion that a government or governmentality by existing is a ruling class and does not accept others co-ruling. I think this habitual tradition of servitude to political leaders and bureaucrats is what keeps the system together. Even a crazy quilt is a quilt. Yes indeed until modernity and speed. The shortest interval of time ever recorded, clocking how long it takes a particle of light to cross a single molecule of hydrogen, took 247 zeptoseconds, according to a team of German researchers, with a zeptosecond representing a trillionth of a billionth of a second. Can man exist in a technological world such as this? Can our institutions?
Well to a certain extent though these Greeks defining what is a Jew largely were Syrian and Egyptian. By the time of Roman occupation of England the wife of the Roman governor was Jewish.
No I mean literally invented. A new ideology was raised which had no relationship to any peoples of this Greek World at the time. Therefore the people had to be invented. Syrians at the time were pretty much Greek anyway (i.e. Pythagorus ended up there) and Alexandria was too. And Egypt had been ruled on and off (but mostly on) by Greeks for 6-700 years.
Jewish history and myth is taken from this Greek. For example the story of Deucalion. Biblical myths (and most of Biblical history) have a clear Greek parentage.
Oh, the sense of superiority is omnipresent in tribalism, which is the social setup Jews had at the time of the Ten Commandments (around 800 BC). Still, they had the ideology in their religion and had not philosophers, only prophets. Besides them, the Japanese, and even "orthodox" Gypsies have a demeaning word for outsiders.
I have had the suspicion of time passing orders of magnitude faster than ever before, but from our point of view, if makes no, if any, difference.
Governments have been only servants to the real rulers in the last 100 or more years. I'm still finding it strange that three billionaires who opposed the idea of the Federal Reserve happened to sink with the Titanic...
The colonies, including the penal one down under served as a pressure valves for the British with everything, except, of course, their upper class, losing grounds. Masonry did play a central role in the "American Revolution," but I don't think it's relevant by now. Yes, Thomas Jefferson blanked out everything from his Bible that couldn't be logically explained. Some things never change, I guess; people don't realize that life itself is a miracle and keep behaving as NPCs in a computer game...
Physicists cannot even explain their own multiple paradigms without assuming the existence of 7-13 "dimensions" that go way beyond the four of perceptual experience.
As the Soviet Union didn't collapse, but fell to internal sabotage, you and I might still have a little chance, too, to leave this world in a civilized manner. :)
Yes internal sabotage. Collapse of a specific Janus face and overt power structure. I suspect in our circumstance more warfare and not a peaceful unravel.
Phone is broken, getting it fixed this weekend with luck. Wife's situation today is very low blood pressure. I do not have an extra two hours to go to my phone store to port my number to her old phone. We had three hours in Kaiser yesterday. May use hers.
I have been wondering about elections and taxes; at what point is it incumbent upon a human being to withdraw support for current governing bodies. What would the gov have to do to encourage folks to abandon these systems entirely to survive or thrive? Congradulations are in order, I suppose, they have done it, made rebels out of what were cooperative though disgruntled citizens. There is now no reward whatsoever to engaging in voting and taxes, only penalty. I still can smell the steel of the trap.
Ray. I think you would have been better served studying Twain rather than Aristotle. He understood democracy but Aristotle did not, never having encountered one. You likewise.
I would also like to know how Twain understood democracy but Aristotle didn't.
Greece was not a democracy, We are told it is as part of the control narrative.
Only 19% of Greeks had a vote, those whose both parents were Athenian born. Women, aliens, slaves, and others had no say. Thus, Aristotle was referring to a corrupt system bearing the Greek name for it. The terms People Power, Decisions by Consensus Protocols, Multilateralism, and Anarchy are more accurate. As the Irish Monks, Twain, Thomas Paine, Lord Acton, and Abraham Lincoln could tell you, genuine democracy is "Government of the people, by the people and for the people". What this means in today's parlance is that all the people, fully informed., have the opportunity to formulate neighbourhood, regional and national policy, to whatever depth they feel comfortable with. As Paine put it, "All authority resides in the people". Another way to say this is the Basic Human Right to Self Determination.
The elites have told you that democracy is electing some corrupt tosser to do your thinking for you, and you bought it; as did we all. There were many democracies around the world and because all those books describing these were burned in 2003 (in Australia anyway), you no longer have access to history.
But I know you will reject this which is why I am so reluctant to go into it.
Reject what exactly? That a democracy is supposed to be of the people, by the people and for the people? Familiar words, only it doesn't exactly work out that way, does it ? Which is why in theory a constitutional republic is supposed to solve the problem of fifty one percent voting away rights or voting themselves benefits from the public trough. In fact every government eventually becomes an oligarchy/kleptocracy/kakistocracy/tyranny given time. Then there is collapse and the whole dreary thing starts all over again.
Boy, are you dumb. The plutocrats call oligarchy a democracy and so you conclude democracy does not work.
I prefer to avoid conversations with Americans because your indoctrination runs so deep you cannot find your way out. The more logical course for me is to wait until the US implodes and then chat with the prepper survivors. They, at least, live in the real world.
Meanwhile, dwell on this. Last time I looked. which was a decade ago, the US was 39th on the global literacy scale. It must have plummeted since then.
Apologies to Fran, below.
Yes, the plutocrats call oligarchy a democracy. I pretty much said that. Yes, democracy doesn't work for the reasons I gave. thanks for the insult. Regards.
Don't thank me, you earned it. If you meant something else, edit carefully.
Please, refrain from name-calling. Keep the conversation civilized and respectful. Keep to the topic and stay specific by avoiding generalizations.
Preppers won't have internet access. :)
I am glad to meet with someone as knowledgeable as you. :)
Instead of a general statement, specifics would be most welcome. Otherwise voicing your opinion reveals more about you than about your thoughts.
LOL. I can't help myself. It's an illness.
I suggest We opt for a solutocracy...
Solutocracy (7 min): https://odysee.com/@amaterasusolar:8/solutocracy:c?lid=eeff9e0c80138ce03e22d76bcd5f2f873ff46b72
And get rid of the need for money.
Money Enslaves Us (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/money-enslaves-us
I wish more people understood the difference between a Democracy and a Constitutional Republic. But I have to agree with your comments on where we are currently at. Welfare was abused to the Nth degree. Probably designed that way as everything "they" create has an ulterior goal, and its not for the good of the people. Stealing from the working to give to the non-working who'll never contribute to society. Why should they? I also wish people understood that the government doesn't produce a damn thing, other than problems. What sickens me most is when any politician claims they will tax the rich. Never seen that happen in my lifetime. Its long past the time of quenching the Tree of Liberty. Allowing anyone who wants to inhabit our country for freebies is a major, major mistake. More burden on us tax payers. If only these illegals knew they're next on the kill list.
years ago I had a conversion with a government worker. He wanted to tax the rich. It didn't go exactly this way but this is what happened. I asked him how much he made. He gave me a figure. I then asked what are the rich. He answered anyone who makes more than me.
LOL - I work part time plus receive Social Security. Would MUCH rather not work anymore, but unfortunately, I have to support the rich and the bottom feeders. I think those on Welfare and other government programs make far than many of us with all the perks they receive, yet they still complain about "privileges". Oh, don't let me forget to mention stealing from stores and not being arrested, i.e. the cost of groceries and other items hitting the ceiling.
You mean you are supporting the freeloaders, right?
There are three kinds of recent illegals:
1. young women and children for sex or organ trade, who tend to "disappear"; I've seen some of them "transported" last fall:
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/illegals-shipped-in-unmarked-buses
2. military-aged males, probably trained for private/secret armies;
3. the "rubble," used for experiments and test runs in death camps.
The people are nearly always ignored by the powerful, but I still remember Sweden having a 90 percent income tax on those, who made a lot of money, but the problem is now moot with all their illegals taking over their country. Nazi Germany was another exception.
I'm a simpleton and believe that the root of it all is a corruptible
nature of us, humans, in majority in any case. I don't think that can be changed, if anything it seems it worsened through the centuries
(I might be wrong here). Thank you for another great stack Ray!
Thank you, Marta. If you are a simpleton, so am I. I've been saying it from the beginning that the problem is human nature, and if history started over a million times, it would always end like this. The problem is that all civilizations follow the same timetable and after a final centralization, they collapse, and another takes over. This time, there is not "another." In the meanwhile, all civilizations follow the same structural pattern and have the same strata in their demography:
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/apocalypse-now
What puzzles me is why do they keep coming here? I'd think the word would get out to their people, so they must know about these nefarious activities. No wonder why Hillary and Slick Willy are still kicking. They both look physically unwell........
Apparently, they are given money and they are pro missed more. They are not the first ones being tricked.
I disagree, or at least am not convinced, of a few things here. I wish I had time to spell them out.
Also, I do engage in discussions, but only if specific conditions are met that I describe here:
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/steve-kirsch-is-challenging-again
I'm not writing in order to convince anyone, but to inspire thinking. Those who make up their minds are harder to manipulate and cannot blame others for their decisions.
This is why I like your stack because it inspires and you don't preach.
Thank you. Sites that mislead the clueless seem to be a lot more popular. :)
I approve of inspiring others to think, but if you're convinced of something then the point of voicing it would be either to convince others of it or to have others disabuse you of it, wouldn't it? Do you agree that if you and someone else disagree about something then exactly one of you is mistaken, which is potentially perilous for whichever of the two that is? (I hope I've kept your discussion rules, which I haven't read yet.)
It depends on the problem being discussed. The short answer is "no," most of the time, but here is the explanation.
Most problems are not exclusively logical, so they cannot be solved by logic alone. Truth judgment usually happens at the cognitive level from which it originates or it is overwritten by a higher level:
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/what-makes-you-think-you-are-right
Moreover, in order to agree with your assumption, I'd have to be a gnostic, but the simplicity of human cognition rules out gnosis, that is, full knowledge of anything. In fact, when people communicate with each other, they usually use culturally-encoded models that function only within their culture, and even there, functionality is severely limited.
In order to set up a discussion, the criteria from my article must be met first.
The only way out of the freemason crystal maze is to build a new system from scratch with the following keynotes:
Money: it’s a bad idea that Government has a monopoly of anything, especially currency. Anything of worth should be legal tender, even vouchers, IOUs, warrants, etc. Communities should be entitled to run their own monetary system, based on real assets. No only gold, silver, copper, platinum, lithium, precious metals and minerals, but also barter vouchers such as a pound/kg of flour, a gallon/liter of gasoline, human hours, distance transported (humans, volume, weight, special care).
Townhall Direct Democracy: votes should never be anonymous. Face to face contact is important in an era of deep fake and fake news, but even more for accountability. Representative democracy isn’t necessary if there are efficient and safe voting systems. You represent yourself, though you have the power to delegate your voting power to different representatives for different topics/mandates for a limited time and recover it whenever you want, even before the period is over.
Direct spending: those that vote believing that their votes count, also believe that they have to obey and endure whatever “their” representative government commands, because they voted for it. This can easily be solved by constitutional restrictions with severe punishment for any violation, especially, spending more than income should be forbidden and jailed. But that won’t stop the corruption, therefore we need direct spending: the federal, state and county incomes are divided by all the inhabitants (including the unborn), and you get to decide where every single proportionate cent is going to be spend in public goods and services. There’s a Spanish saying: “the eye of the master, fattens the cattle”. Direct spending would reduce bureaucracy, corruption, inefficiency, waste, unmet needs and government spending in things that are not a priority for the people. Deficit and borrowing should be illegal. After some years of solving critical problems, people will find harder to justify projects with low socio-economic net present value or internal rate of return, thus surplus would be returned to tax payers, and eventually, taxes lowered: it seems to be the only realistic mechanism to stop the spiral of government deficit and debt, where banksters take hostage future generations and politicians have nothing to lose by increasing spending and everything to win in terms of each group of voters thinking they are taking advantage of their politician/party by receiving more than the rest (e.g. detaxing the rich!).
Brutal transparency: reps should live stream at all possible times (not only working hours). All budgets, bids and transactions should be open for online scrutiny.
Democratic justice: community courts should be formed by people: the number of judges in the court is decided by the community. They could be elected for a certain period by chance or by vote, from a list of those capable of interpreting texts or from a list of lawyers. The same, for higher appeal courts. There’s no true democracy if natural law, including natural human rights, isn’t above the Constitution.
The police should be a local force. The captain should be elected.
The penitentiary system should be community based and directed towards reformation and paying back damages. House arrest or fenced working zones should be the norm.
My little contribution to the discussion:
The 2020 and 2022 rigged and stolen elections (it’s the machines!):
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/the-2020-american-coup
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/david-rockefeller-illuminati
J6: what THEY don't want YOU to know
The fake riot was mason-planned, incited and guided by FBI agents, who broke into the Capitol !!!
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/j6-what-you-need-to-know
Dominion over US
You can’t make this stuff up. Do they laugh in our faces? Was the name Dominion chosen to prove their dominion?
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/dominion-over-us
A Republic or a Democracy? Are we crazy to accept demo-crazy?
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/democracy-democrazy
It sucks! We need to improve democracy… how about REAL democracy?
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/reinventing-democracy
What I can see it that the invisible powers that are using the choke hold on governments by controlling the money supply is using front groups (Masons, Jesuits, Zionists, and the like) as patsies or useful idiots.
You seem to focus on "Freemasons."
Yup, I never understood how blood-sweat-tears an' some good thinkin' gave us (at the start) a purdy decent republic (on paper...) and a good blueprint to refer to fer keepin' it... an' the damned finger-painters (who erased a lotta elegant John Hancocks...) made a mess've the whole thing--smeared it, mangled it, and "fer simplicity" told everyone we had a DEMOCRACY as if that was a "good thing" to spread around like manure! (how Francis Bacon knew about manure makes me "wunder...") Since that time it's indeed been a lot've manure--an' sadly not the organic kind from which GOOD things grow!
You made me LOL early in the morning! :)
Helots wern't part of Sparta a small town in Laconia. They were the subjects of Sparta elsewhere.
But to be honest I am a complete atheist on Sparta. The big town at the time in that region was Argos not Sparta (a small village according to the Iliad). I think Sparta was a complete invention after the fact.
History is always written by the winners. :)
Gave me a headache; it may be unsolvable. Ha, what IF? it's unsolvable?
Am I glad to be 'Sola Scriptura', simple, clean, good. Worship
on Sabbath, 7th day. All through the bible. No sun worship for us.
No condemning either. But what I hear sounds crazy.
Iesous (Jesus) said 'Serve God or Mammon'. Mammon is clear.
Iesous is also a small town.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iasos
«For years now, Westerners have been living in democratic societies in which this quite unreliable mode of political control is taken to mean everything to all people. Hence, being undemocratic is tantamount to being criminal – because the government of equals is sacrosanct, and considered as built upon moral principle on the same level of “Thy shall not kill!” commandment.
Yet, there’s nothing intrinsically morally binding in democracy, as much as there’s no such thing as ‘government of equals.’
People fall into this illusion because of an assumption that political life and – even more so – the legal system are the ultimate playgrounds of good and evil, whereas they most certainly are not. There were, and there are, authoritarian regimes which on average, weigh upon the shoulders of far better men than those inhabiting so-called ‘developed’ nations and modern democracies.
To add insult to injury, people leading the actual contemporary democracies don’t actually suffer challenge to their power. The ideal about which we are speaking of is a fig leaf – and rather a small one – concealing something called oligarchy.
In this sense, I never had illusions about actual democracies. But, as a political atheist, I also never believed in the ideal of democracy which is properly an object of political theology: the thought that relies upon premise that man and society can be essentially, revolutionary, transformed.
When observing the acts of masses of humanity, I find it obvious that “people’s will” is often far better suited to organize a lynching party rather than to rule itself. But this doesn’t in the least fill me with resentment towards my fellow men. Sometimes anger, sometimes sorrow – most often resignation – but never resentment. However bad they can get, the moment you feel yourself as somehow morally superior, I bet you dime to a dollar that one of them will surprise you and put you to shame by act of selflessness. And then, one is obliged to remember that everything he says about human beings, he also says about himself.
That said… The Democratic Man can have none of this. Either you are damned, or you are the Saint. […] The dangerous man, however, is the true believer in democracy; the real villain and enemy of democracy is the one who evangelises and worships it, and at one moment begins to lose his faith. Or gets radicalized in it. […]»
https://21stcenturywire.com/2016/07/15/bedtime-for-democracy-a-dialectics-of-resentment/
Aristocrats, Ray. Aristotle favored Aristocrats. Aristocracy, in theory, is the next-best constitution after monarchy (because the ruling minority will be the best-qualified to rule), but in practice Aristotle preferred a kind of constitutional democracy, for what he called “polity” is a state in which rich and poor respect each other’s rights and the best-qualified citizens rule with the consent of all.
We tend to think of our Founders in light of legendary history of this nation as quasi-Aristocrats. And many were. As was the creation of Federal power to favor the merchant class and landholders. An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States argues that the structure of the Constitution of the United States was motivated primarily by the personal financial interests of the Founding Fathers. Beard contends that the authors of The Federalist Papers represented an interest group themselves. More specifically, Beard contends that the Constitutional Convention was attended by, and the Constitution was therefore written by, a "cohesive" elite seeking to protect its personal property (especially federal bonds) and economic standing. Beard examined the occupations and property holdings of the members of the convention from tax and census records, contemporaneous news accounts, and biographical sources, demonstrating the degree to which each stood to benefit from various Constitutional provisions. Beard pointed out, for example, that George Washington was the wealthiest landowner in the country, and had provided significant funding towards the American Revolution. Beard traces the Constitutional guarantee that the newly formed nation would pay its debts to the desire of Washington and similarly situated lenders to have their costs refunded.
Thank you for your thoughtful contribution.
Let me drop my two pennies into the cookie jar, too. :)
The ancient Greeks were the first known "superior race," at least the way they held themselves higher than anyone else. Aristotle definitely propagated that, and it's only human nature. Yes, if you will, Aristotle was an elitist, but in the same sense, so are you, and so am I, except we don't assign ourselves to a clan. Also, you are talking about the "rich and the poor," when about 70 percent of the people around him were slaves...
Federal power only followed the footsteps of the East and the West India Companies, and kept the same financing sources.
I am not mesmerized by the "Founding Fathers," but they said and did a few things right; in fact, more than most governments have ever done. As you know, I favor the Articles of Confederation over the Constitution, but I also agree with you that The Constitution only set up the country on the path that is about to end soon...
In my understanding, the ideal form of government relies on the upper middle class, and keeps doing that despite any form of social mobility. Such a government would be a real feat to achieve, because all civilizations eventually end up with centralization of power that leads to their collapse. To me, it has gotten to the point of being boring.
All "revolutions" use the peasants to fight for a new ruling class. End of story.
I think the Jews were before the Greeks in elite superiority complexes.
The frame of the story of Independence really requires noticing the living standard of the Colonies was higher than the Mother country. Then opinions regarding a German King. And the Albany plan of Union. And other complexities of the British Empire and international Masonry.
Collapse from a TV window looks boring. From real life not so much. We have not come of age in nations torn by war at home like Yugoslavia say-not yet. I do expect our Union dissolving is more like the dissolving of the Empire of Alexander than the Soviet Collapse. Or maybe a mix of both. Generals going their own way as several centers of power disagree on who is boss. This could happen any day or postpone for dozens of years until the right mass psychosis triggers the unrest.
I am in the end of the opinion that a government or governmentality by existing is a ruling class and does not accept others co-ruling. I think this habitual tradition of servitude to political leaders and bureaucrats is what keeps the system together. Even a crazy quilt is a quilt. Yes indeed until modernity and speed. The shortest interval of time ever recorded, clocking how long it takes a particle of light to cross a single molecule of hydrogen, took 247 zeptoseconds, according to a team of German researchers, with a zeptosecond representing a trillionth of a billionth of a second. Can man exist in a technological world such as this? Can our institutions?
The Jews were invented by the Greeks.
Well to a certain extent though these Greeks defining what is a Jew largely were Syrian and Egyptian. By the time of Roman occupation of England the wife of the Roman governor was Jewish.
No I mean literally invented. A new ideology was raised which had no relationship to any peoples of this Greek World at the time. Therefore the people had to be invented. Syrians at the time were pretty much Greek anyway (i.e. Pythagorus ended up there) and Alexandria was too. And Egypt had been ruled on and off (but mostly on) by Greeks for 6-700 years.
Jewish history and myth is taken from this Greek. For example the story of Deucalion. Biblical myths (and most of Biblical history) have a clear Greek parentage.
It's all Greek.
Oh, the sense of superiority is omnipresent in tribalism, which is the social setup Jews had at the time of the Ten Commandments (around 800 BC). Still, they had the ideology in their religion and had not philosophers, only prophets. Besides them, the Japanese, and even "orthodox" Gypsies have a demeaning word for outsiders.
I have had the suspicion of time passing orders of magnitude faster than ever before, but from our point of view, if makes no, if any, difference.
Governments have been only servants to the real rulers in the last 100 or more years. I'm still finding it strange that three billionaires who opposed the idea of the Federal Reserve happened to sink with the Titanic...
The colonies, including the penal one down under served as a pressure valves for the British with everything, except, of course, their upper class, losing grounds. Masonry did play a central role in the "American Revolution," but I don't think it's relevant by now. Yes, Thomas Jefferson blanked out everything from his Bible that couldn't be logically explained. Some things never change, I guess; people don't realize that life itself is a miracle and keep behaving as NPCs in a computer game...
Physicists cannot even explain their own multiple paradigms without assuming the existence of 7-13 "dimensions" that go way beyond the four of perceptual experience.
As the Soviet Union didn't collapse, but fell to internal sabotage, you and I might still have a little chance, too, to leave this world in a civilized manner. :)
Yes internal sabotage. Collapse of a specific Janus face and overt power structure. I suspect in our circumstance more warfare and not a peaceful unravel.
There will be, and there are, wars acceptable as collateral damage, but it's going to be mostly rumors of wars and matching false flags...
Just call me; this would make a nice conversation for the weekend. :)
Phone is broken, getting it fixed this weekend with luck. Wife's situation today is very low blood pressure. I do not have an extra two hours to go to my phone store to port my number to her old phone. We had three hours in Kaiser yesterday. May use hers.
Hoped to talk about that in private. Are they giving her anything else than blood thinners?
If you use hers, I'll recognize the area code.
Nothing in way of medication. Which is sane. That which is not sane simply is. And following my master Pope -"If the great end be human happiness,
Then Nature deviates; and can man do less?"
I have been wondering about elections and taxes; at what point is it incumbent upon a human being to withdraw support for current governing bodies. What would the gov have to do to encourage folks to abandon these systems entirely to survive or thrive? Congradulations are in order, I suppose, they have done it, made rebels out of what were cooperative though disgruntled citizens. There is now no reward whatsoever to engaging in voting and taxes, only penalty. I still can smell the steel of the trap.
Good Morning and touché!
Good discussion. More later. This opens a great pathway to even more meaningful discussions. Thanks.