Ảo Thể Nhà Nước, Một Thượng Đế của các Thượng Đế và Con Người Nô Lệ- Hegelianism
"The Nation State is spirit in its ... actuality ... it is therefore the absolute power on earth. ... The State is the Spirit of the People itself. The actual State is animated by this spirit ... The self-consciousness of one particular Nation is the vehicle for the ... development of the collective spirit; ... in it, the Spirit of the Time invests its Will. Against this Will, other national minds have no rights: that Nation dominates the World."
From G.W.F. Hegel, Philosophy of Law, § 331.
All the worth which the human being possesses - all spiritual reality, he possesses only through the State. ... For Truth is the Unity of the universal and subjective Will; and The Universal is to be found in the State, in its laws, its universal and rational arrangements. The State is the Divine Idea as it exists on earth. We have in it, therefore, the object of History in a more definite shape than before; that in which Freedom obtains objectivity, and lives in the enjoyment of this objectivity. ... When the State of our country constitutes a community of existence; when the subjective will of man submits to laws, the contradiction between Liberty and Necessity vanishes. The Rational has necessary existence, as being the reality and substance of things, and we are free in recognizing it as law, and following it as the substance of our own being. The objective and subjective will are then reconciled, and present one identical homogenized whole."
From G.W.F. Hegel, Philosophy of History in Jacob Loewenberg (ed.), Hegel: Selections (New York: C. Scribner's Sons, 1929), pp. 388-89.
"The State is the realization of the ethical idea. It is the ethical spirit as revealed, self-conscious, substantial will. It is the will which thinks and knows itself, and carries out what it knows, and in so far as it knows. The unreflected existence of the State rests on custom, and its reflected on the self-consciousness of the individual, in return, has his substantial freedom in the State, as the essence, purpose, and product of his activity."
"The true State is the ethical whole and the realization of freedom.It is the absolute purpose of reason that freedom should be realized. ... The State is the march of God through the World, its ground is the power of reason realizing itself as will."
"We must ... worship the State as the manifestation of the Divine on Earth."
From G.W.F. Hegel, Philosophy of Law in Jacob Loewenberg (ed.), Hegel: Selections (New York: C. Scribner's Sons, 1929), pp. 443-444, 447.
PRIMACY OF THE STATE VS. THE INDIVIDUAL
"In civilized nations, true bravery consists in the readiness to give oneself wholly to the service of the State so that the individual counts but as one among many. Not personal valor alone is significant; the important aspect lies in self-subordination to the universal cause."
From G.W.F. Hegel, Philosophy of Law in Jacob Loewenberg (ed.), Hegel: Selections (New York: C. Scribner's Sons, 1929), p. 465.
"A State is well-constituted and internally powerful, when the private interest of its citizens is one with the common interest of the State; when the one finds its gratification and realization in the other."
From G.W.F. Hegel, Philosophy of History in Jacob Loewenberg (ed.), Hegel: Selections (New York: C. Scribner's Sons, 1929), p. 369.
"The origin of a State involves imperious lordship on the one hand, instinctive submission on the other. Obedience - Lordly power, and the fear inspired by a ruler - in itself implies some degree of voluntary connection ... it is not the isolated will of individuals that prevails; individual pretensions are relinquished, and the general will is the essential bond of political union."
From G.W.F. Hegel, Philosophy of History in Jacob Loewenberg (ed.), Hegel: Selections (New York: C. Scribner's Sons, 1929), p. 398.
"A single person, it hardly needs saying, is something subordinate, and as such he must dedicate himself to the ethical whole [this whole being the Nation]."
From G.W.F. Hegel, Philosophy of Law, § 70L.
MONARCHY AS THE MOST RATIONAL AND THUS DIVINE GOVERNMENT
"The really living totality, that which preserves, and continually produces, the State and its constitution, is the Government. In the Government, regarded as an organic totality, the Sovereign Power or Principate is ... the all sustaining, all decreeing Will of the State, its highest peak and all pervasive unity. In the perfect form of the State in which each and every element ... has reached its free existence, this will is that of one actual decreeing individual; it is monarchy. The monarchical constitution is therefore the constitution of developed reason; and all other constitutions belong to lower grades of development and the self-realization of reason."
From G.W.F. Hegel, Philosophy of Mind in Jacob Loewenberg (ed.), Hegel: Selections (New York: C. Scribner's Sons, 1929), pp. 252-53.
RELIGION AS THE BASIS OF THE STATE
"Freedom can exist only where individuality is recognized as having its positive and real existence in the Divine Being. ... On this account it is that the State rests on Religion ... obedience to King and Law so naturally follows in the train of reverence for God. ... The form of Religion, therefore, decides that of the State and its constitution."
From G.W.F. Hegel, Philosophy of History in Jacob Loewenberg (ed.), Hegel: Selections (New York: C. Scribner's Sons, 1929), pp. 404-05.
SUBJECTIVE, POLITICAL EQUALITY VS. OBJECTIVE, "TRUE" EQUALITY
"That citizens are equal before the law contains a great truth. But expressed in this way, it is only a tautology; it only states in general that a legal status exists, that the laws rule. But to be more concrete, the citizens ... are equal before the law only in the points in which they are equal outside the law also. Only that equality which they possess in property, age, etc. ... can deserve equal treatment before ... the law."
From G.W.F. Hegel, Philosophy of Mind in Jacob Loewenberg (ed.), Hegel: Selections (New York: C. Scribner's Sons, 1929), pp. 248f.
HEGELIAN "CONSTITUTIONALISM"
"The constitutions under which World Historical Peoples have reached their culmination, are peculiar to them; and therefore do not present a generally applicable political basis."
"The so-called Representative Constitution is that form of government with which we connect the idea of a free constitution, and this notion has become a rooted prejudice. On this theory People and Government are separated. But there is a perversity in this antithesis; an ill-intentioned ruse designed to insinuate that the People are the totality of the State."
From G.W.F. Hegel, Philosophy of History in Jacob Loewenberg (ed.), Hegel: Selections (New York: C. Scribner's Sons, 1929), pp. 399-401.
"The question 'To whom ... belongs the power of making a constitution?' is the same as 'Who has to make the Spirit of a Nation?' Separate your idea of a constitution from that of a collective spirit ... and your fancy proves how superficially you have apprehended the nexus [between the two] ... It is the indwelling spirit and the history of the Nation - which is that Spirit's history - by which constitutions have been made and are made."
From G.W.F. Hegel, Philosophy of Mind in Jacob Loewenberg (ed.), Hegel: Selections (New York: C. Scribner's Sons, 1929), pp. 251ff.
CONTEMPT FOR THE MASSES, PUBLIC OPINION, AND FREEDOM OF THE PRESS
"The many ... whom one chooses to call the people, are indeed a collection, but only as a multitude, a formless mass, whose movement and action would be elemental, irrational, savage, and terrible."
"Public opinion deserves ... to be esteemed as much as to be despised; to be despised for its concrete consciousness and expression, to be esteemed for its essential fundamental principle, which only shines, more or less dimly, through its concrete expression."
"The definition of the freedom of the press as freedom to say and write what one pleases, is parallel to the one of freedom in general, viz., as freedom to do what one pleases. Such a view belongs to the uneducated crudity and superficiality of naïve thinking."
From G.W.F. Hegel, Philosophy of Law in Jacob Loewenberg (ed.), Hegel: Selections (New York: C. Scribner's Sons, 1929), pp. 457, 461-62.
"When it is contrasted with the sovereignty of the monarch, the phrase 'sovereignty of the people' turns out to be merely one of those confused notions which arise from the wild idea of the 'people'. Without its monarch ... the people are just a formless multitude."
From G.W.F. Hegel, Philosophy of Law, § 279.
THE HISTORICAL IMPORTANCE OF GREAT MEN
"In public opinion all is false and true, but to discover the truth in it is the business of the great man. The great man of his time is he who expresses the will and the meaning of that time, and then brings it to completion; he acts according to the inner spirit and essence of his time, which he realizes. And he who does not understand how to despise public opinion, as it makes itself heard here and there, will never accomplish anything great."
From G.W.F. Hegel, Philosophy of Law in Jacob Loewenberg (ed.), Hegel: Selections (New York: C. Scribner's Sons, 1929), p. 461.
"The laws of morality are not accidental, but are essentially Rational. It is the very object of the State that what is essential in the practical activity of men, and in their dispositions, should be duly recognized; that it should have a manifest existence, and maintain its position. It is the absolute interest of Reason that this moral Whole should exist; and herein lies the justification and merit of heroes who have founded states - however rude these may have been."
From G.W.F. Hegel, Philosophy of History in Jacob Loewenberg (ed.), Hegel: Selections (New York: C. Scribner's Sons, 1929), p. 388.
"Such are all great historical men, whose own particular aims involve those large issues which are the will of the World Spirit. ... World historical men - the Heroes of an epoch - must be recognized as its clear-sighted ones; their deeds, their words are the best of that time. Great men have formed purposes to satisfy themselves, not others."
"Princes are generally unhappy on their thrones ... The Free Man ... is not envious, but gladly recognizes what is great and exalted, and rejoices that it exists."
"A World-Historical individual is devoted to the One Aim, regardless of all else. It is even possible that such men may treat other great, even sacred interests inconsiderately; conduct which is indeed obnoxious to moral reprehension. But so mighty a form must trample down many an innocent flower or crush to pieces many an object in its path."
From G.W.F. Hegel, Philosophy of History in Jacob Loewenberg (ed.), Hegel: Selections (New York: C. Scribner's Sons, 1929), pp. 376-80.
THE GOOD OF WAR
"War has the deep meaning that by it the ethical health of nations is preserved and their finite aims uprooted. And as the winds which sweep over the ocean prevent decay that would result from its perpetual calm, so war protects the people from the corruption which an everlasting peace would bring upon it. History shows phases which illustrate how successful wars have checked internal unrest and have strengthened the entire stability of the State. Not only do nations issue forth invigorated from their wars, but those nations torn by internal strife, win peace at home as a result of war abroad."
From G.W.F. Hegel, Philosophy of Law in Jacob Loewenberg (ed.), Hegel: Selections (New York: C. Scribner's Sons, 1929), pp. 464-65.
=====================
Plato: The State and the Soul
The Republic
The most comprehensive statement of Plato's mature philosophical views appears in Πολιτεια(The Republic), an extended treatment of the most fundamental principles for the conduct of human life. Using the character "Socrates" as a fictional spokesman, Plato considers the nature and value of justice and the other virtues as they appear both in the structure of society as a whole and in the personality of an individual human being. This naturally leads to discussions of human nature, the achievement of knowledge, the distinction between appearance and reality, the components of an effective education, and the foundations of morality.
Because it covers so many issues, The Republic can be read in several different ways: as a treatise on political theory and practice, as a pedagogical handbook, or as a defence of ethical conduct, for example. Although we'll take notice of each of these features along the way, our primary focus in what follows will be on the basic metaphysical and epistemological issues, foundational questions about who we are, what is real, and about how we know it. Read in this fashion, the dialogue as a whole invites us to share in Plato's vision of our place within the ultimate structure of reality.
Because it covers so many issues, The Republic can be read in several different ways: as a treatise on political theory and practice, as a pedagogical handbook, or as a defence of ethical conduct, for example. Although we'll take notice of each of these features along the way, our primary focus in what follows will be on the basic metaphysical and epistemological issues, foundational questions about who we are, what is real, and about how we know it. Read in this fashion, the dialogue as a whole invites us to share in Plato's vision of our place within the ultimate structure of reality.
What is Justice?
Book I of The Republic appears to be a Socratic dialogue on the nature of justice (Gk. δικαιωσυνη [dikaiôsunê]). As always, the goal of the discussion is to discover the genuine nature of the subject at hand, but the process involves the proposal, criticism, and rejection of several inadequate attempts at defining what justice really is.
The elderly, wealthy Cephalus suggests that justice involves nothing more than telling the truth and repaying one's debts. But Socrates points out that in certain (admittedly unusual) circumstances, following these simple rules without exception could produce disastrous results. (Republic 331c) Returning a borrowed weapon to an insane friend, for example, would be an instance of following the rule but would not seem to be an instance of just action. The presentation of a counter-example of this sort tends to show that the proposed definition of justice is incorrect, since its application does not correspond with our ordinary notion of justice.
In an effort to avoid such difficulties, Polemarchus offers a refinement of the definition by proposing that justice means "giving to each what is owed." The new definition codifies formally our deeply-entrenched practice of seeking always to help our friends and harm our enemies. This evades the earlier counter-example, since the just act of refusing to return the borrowed weapon would clearly benefit one's friend. But Socrates points out that harsh treatment of our enemies is only likely to render them even more unjust than they already are. (Republic 335d) Since, as we saw in the Phaedo, opposites invariably exclude each other, the production of injustice could never be an element within the character of true justice; so this definition, too, must be mistaken.
The elderly, wealthy Cephalus suggests that justice involves nothing more than telling the truth and repaying one's debts. But Socrates points out that in certain (admittedly unusual) circumstances, following these simple rules without exception could produce disastrous results. (Republic 331c) Returning a borrowed weapon to an insane friend, for example, would be an instance of following the rule but would not seem to be an instance of just action. The presentation of a counter-example of this sort tends to show that the proposed definition of justice is incorrect, since its application does not correspond with our ordinary notion of justice.
In an effort to avoid such difficulties, Polemarchus offers a refinement of the definition by proposing that justice means "giving to each what is owed." The new definition codifies formally our deeply-entrenched practice of seeking always to help our friends and harm our enemies. This evades the earlier counter-example, since the just act of refusing to return the borrowed weapon would clearly benefit one's friend. But Socrates points out that harsh treatment of our enemies is only likely to render them even more unjust than they already are. (Republic 335d) Since, as we saw in the Phaedo, opposites invariably exclude each other, the production of injustice could never be an element within the character of true justice; so this definition, too, must be mistaken.
The Privilege of Power
At this point in the dialogue, Plato introduces Thrasymachus the sophist, another fictionalized portrait of an historical personality. After impatiently dismissing what has gone before, Thrasymachus recommends that we regard justice as the advantage of the stronger; those in positions of power simply use their might to decree what shall be right. This, too, expresses a fairly common (if somewhat pessimistic) view of the facts about social organization.
But of course Socrates has other ideas. For one thing, if the ruling party mistakenly legislates to its own disadvantage, justice will require the rest of us to perform the (apparently) contradictory feat of both doing what they decree and also doing what is best for them. More significantly, Socrates argues that the best ruler must always be someone who knows how to rule, someone who understands ruling as a craft. But since crafts of any sort invariably aim to produce some external goal (Gk. τελος [télos]), good practitioners of each craft always act for the sake of that goal, never in their own interest alone. Thus, good rulers, like good shepherds, must try to do what is best for those who have been entrusted to them, rather than seeking their own welfare. (Republic 342e)
Beaten down by the force of Socratic questioning, Thrasymachus lashes out bitterly and then shifts the focus of the debate completely. If Socrates does happen to be right about the nature of justice, he declares, then it follows that a life devoted to injustice is be more to one's advantage than a life devoted to justice. Surely anyone would prefer to profit by committing an act of injustice against another than to suffer as the victim of an act of injustice committed by someone else. ("Do unto others before they do unto you.") Thus, according to Thrasymachus, injustice is better than justice.
Some preliminary answers come immediately to mind: the personal rewards to be gained from performing a job well are commonly distinct from its intrinsic aims; just people are rightly regarded as superior to unjust people in intelligence and character; every society believes that justice (as conceived in that society) is morally obligatory; and justice is the proper virtue (Gk. αρετη [aretê]) of the human soul. But if Socrates himself might have been satisfied with responses of this sort, Plato the philosophical writer was not. There must be an answer that derives more fundamentally from the nature of reality.
But of course Socrates has other ideas. For one thing, if the ruling party mistakenly legislates to its own disadvantage, justice will require the rest of us to perform the (apparently) contradictory feat of both doing what they decree and also doing what is best for them. More significantly, Socrates argues that the best ruler must always be someone who knows how to rule, someone who understands ruling as a craft. But since crafts of any sort invariably aim to produce some external goal (Gk. τελος [télos]), good practitioners of each craft always act for the sake of that goal, never in their own interest alone. Thus, good rulers, like good shepherds, must try to do what is best for those who have been entrusted to them, rather than seeking their own welfare. (Republic 342e)
Beaten down by the force of Socratic questioning, Thrasymachus lashes out bitterly and then shifts the focus of the debate completely. If Socrates does happen to be right about the nature of justice, he declares, then it follows that a life devoted to injustice is be more to one's advantage than a life devoted to justice. Surely anyone would prefer to profit by committing an act of injustice against another than to suffer as the victim of an act of injustice committed by someone else. ("Do unto others before they do unto you.") Thus, according to Thrasymachus, injustice is better than justice.
Some preliminary answers come immediately to mind: the personal rewards to be gained from performing a job well are commonly distinct from its intrinsic aims; just people are rightly regarded as superior to unjust people in intelligence and character; every society believes that justice (as conceived in that society) is morally obligatory; and justice is the proper virtue (Gk. αρετη [aretê]) of the human soul. But if Socrates himself might have been satisfied with responses of this sort, Plato the philosophical writer was not. There must be an answer that derives more fundamentally from the nature of reality.
Is Justice Better than Injustice?
When Thrasymachus falls silent, other characters from the dialogue continue to pursue the central questions: what is justice, how can we achieve it, and what is its value? Not everyone will agree that justice should be defended as worthwhile for its own sake, rather than for the extrinsic advantages that may result from its practice.
It helps to have a concrete example in mind. So Glaucon recounts the story of Gyges, the shepherd who discovered a ring that rendered him invisible and immediately embarked on a life of crime with perfect impunity. The point is to suggest that human beings—given an opportunity to do so without being caught and therefore without suffering any punishment or loss of good reputation—would naturally choose a life of injustice, in order to maximize their own interests.
Adeimantus narrows the discussion even further by pointing out that the personal benefits of having a good reputation are often acquired by anyone who merely appears to act justly, whether or not that person really does so. (Republic 363a) This suggests the possibility of achieving the greatest possible advantage by having it both ways: act unjustly while preserving the outward appearance of being just, instead of acting justly while risking the outward appearance of injustice. In order to demonstrate once and for all that justice really is valuable for its own sake alone, Plato must show that a life of the second sort is superior to a life of the first sort.
Thrasymachus, Glaucon, and Adeimantus have given voice to a fundamental issue at the heart of any effort to improve human conduct by appealing to the principles of moral philosophy. If what I am morally required to do can (in some circumstances) be different from what I would choose do for my own benefit, then why should I be moral? Plato wrote the remainder of The Republic in an attempt to provide an adequate, satisfying answer to this question.
After Book I, the entire dialogue is pervaded by an extended analogy between the justice of individual human beings and the that of an entire society or city-state. Since the crucial elements of justice may be easier to observe on the larger scale (Republic 369a), Plato began with a detailed analysis of the formation, structure, and organization of an ideal state before applying its results to a description of personal life.
It helps to have a concrete example in mind. So Glaucon recounts the story of Gyges, the shepherd who discovered a ring that rendered him invisible and immediately embarked on a life of crime with perfect impunity. The point is to suggest that human beings—given an opportunity to do so without being caught and therefore without suffering any punishment or loss of good reputation—would naturally choose a life of injustice, in order to maximize their own interests.
Adeimantus narrows the discussion even further by pointing out that the personal benefits of having a good reputation are often acquired by anyone who merely appears to act justly, whether or not that person really does so. (Republic 363a) This suggests the possibility of achieving the greatest possible advantage by having it both ways: act unjustly while preserving the outward appearance of being just, instead of acting justly while risking the outward appearance of injustice. In order to demonstrate once and for all that justice really is valuable for its own sake alone, Plato must show that a life of the second sort is superior to a life of the first sort.
Thrasymachus, Glaucon, and Adeimantus have given voice to a fundamental issue at the heart of any effort to improve human conduct by appealing to the principles of moral philosophy. If what I am morally required to do can (in some circumstances) be different from what I would choose do for my own benefit, then why should I be moral? Plato wrote the remainder of The Republic in an attempt to provide an adequate, satisfying answer to this question.
After Book I, the entire dialogue is pervaded by an extended analogy between the justice of individual human beings and the that of an entire society or city-state. Since the crucial elements of justice may be easier to observe on the larger scale (Republic 369a), Plato began with a detailed analysis of the formation, structure, and organization of an ideal state before applying its results to a description of personal life.
Why We Form a Society
Imagining their likely origins in the prehistorical past, Plato argued that societies are invariably formed for a particular purpose. Individual human beings are not self-sufficient; no one working alone can acquire all of the genuine necessities of life. In order to resolve this difficulty, we gather together into communities for the mutual achievement of our common goals. This succeeds because we can work more efficiently if each of us specializes in the practice of a specific craft: I make all of the shoes; you grow all of the vegetables; she does all of the carpentry; etc. Thus, Plato held that separation of functions and specialization of labor are the keys to the establishment of a worthwhile society.
The result of this original impulse is a society composed of many individuals, organized into distinct classes (clothiers, farmers, builders, etc.) according to the value of their role in providing some component part of the common good. But the smooth operation of the whole society will require some additional services that become necessary only because of the creation of the social organization itself—the adjudication of disputes among members and the defense of the city against external attacks, for example. Therefore, carrying the principle of specialization one step further, Plato proposed the establishment of an additional class of citizens, the guardians who are responsible for management of the society itself.
In fact, Plato held that effective social life requires guardians of two distinct sorts: there must be both soldiers whose function is to defend the state against external enemies and to enforce its laws, and rulers who resolve disagreements among citizens and make decisions about public policy. The guardians collectively, then, are those individuals whose special craft is just the task of governance itself.
The result of this original impulse is a society composed of many individuals, organized into distinct classes (clothiers, farmers, builders, etc.) according to the value of their role in providing some component part of the common good. But the smooth operation of the whole society will require some additional services that become necessary only because of the creation of the social organization itself—the adjudication of disputes among members and the defense of the city against external attacks, for example. Therefore, carrying the principle of specialization one step further, Plato proposed the establishment of an additional class of citizens, the guardians who are responsible for management of the society itself.
In fact, Plato held that effective social life requires guardians of two distinct sorts: there must be both soldiers whose function is to defend the state against external enemies and to enforce its laws, and rulers who resolve disagreements among citizens and make decisions about public policy. The guardians collectively, then, are those individuals whose special craft is just the task of governance itself.
Training the Guardians
In order to fulfill their proper functions, these people will have to be special human beings indeed. Plato hinted early on that one of their most evident characteristics will be a temperamental inclination toward philosophical thinking. As we've already seen in the Apology and in the Phaedo, it is the philosopher above all others who excels at investigating serious questions about human life and at judging what is true and best. But how are personal qualities of this sort to be fostered and developed in an appropriate number of individual citizens? (Republic 376d)
The answer, Plato believed, was to rely upon the value of a good education. (Remember, he operated his own school at Athens!) We'll have an opportunity to consider his notions about higher education later, but his plan for the elementary education of guardians for the ideal state appears in Book III. Its central concern is an emphasis on achieving the proper balance of many disparate components—physical training and musical performance along with basic intellectual development.
One notable feature of this method of raising children is Plato's demand for strict censorship of literary materials, especially poetry and drama. He argued that early absorption in fictional accounts can dull an person's ability to make accurate judgments regarding matters of fact and that excessive participation in dramatic recitations might encourage some people to emulate the worst behavior of the tragic heros. (Republic 395c) Worst of all, excessive attention to fictional contexts may lead to a kind of self-deception, in which individuals are ignorant of the truth about their own natures as human beings. (Republic 382b) Thus, on Plato's view, it is vital for a society to exercise strict control over the content of everything that children read, see, or hear. As we will later notice, Aristotle had very different ideas.
Training of the sort described here (and later) is intended only for those children who will eventually become the guardians of the state. Their performance at this level of education properly determines both whether they are qualified to do so and, if so, whether each of them deserves to be a ruler or a soldier. A society should design its educational system as a means to distinguish among future citizens whose functions will differ and to provide training appropriate to the abilities of each.
The answer, Plato believed, was to rely upon the value of a good education. (Remember, he operated his own school at Athens!) We'll have an opportunity to consider his notions about higher education later, but his plan for the elementary education of guardians for the ideal state appears in Book III. Its central concern is an emphasis on achieving the proper balance of many disparate components—physical training and musical performance along with basic intellectual development.
One notable feature of this method of raising children is Plato's demand for strict censorship of literary materials, especially poetry and drama. He argued that early absorption in fictional accounts can dull an person's ability to make accurate judgments regarding matters of fact and that excessive participation in dramatic recitations might encourage some people to emulate the worst behavior of the tragic heros. (Republic 395c) Worst of all, excessive attention to fictional contexts may lead to a kind of self-deception, in which individuals are ignorant of the truth about their own natures as human beings. (Republic 382b) Thus, on Plato's view, it is vital for a society to exercise strict control over the content of everything that children read, see, or hear. As we will later notice, Aristotle had very different ideas.
Training of the sort described here (and later) is intended only for those children who will eventually become the guardians of the state. Their performance at this level of education properly determines both whether they are qualified to do so and, if so, whether each of them deserves to be a ruler or a soldier. A society should design its educational system as a means to distinguish among future citizens whose functions will differ and to provide training appropriate to the abilities of each.
Divisions of the State
The principle of specialization thus leads to a stratified society. Plato believed that the ideal state comprises members of three distinct classes: rulers, soldiers, and the people. Although he officially maintained that membership in the guardian classes should be based solely upon the possession of appropriate skills, Plato presumed that future guardians will typically be the offspring of those who presently hold similar positions of honor. If citizens express any dissatisfaction with the roles to which they are assigned, he proposed that they be told the "useful falsehood" that human beings (like the metals gold, silver, and bronze) possess different natures that fit each of them to a particular function within the operation of the society as a whole. (Republic 415a)
Notice that this myth (Gk. μυθος [mythos]) cuts both ways. It can certainly be used as a method of social control, by encouraging ordinary people to accept their position at the bottom of the heap, subject to governance by the higher classes. But Plato also held that the myth justifies severe restrictions on the life of the guardians: since they are already gifted with superior natures, they have no need for wealth or other external rewards. In fact, Plato held that guardians should own no private property, should live and eat together at government expense, and should earn no salary greater than necessary to supply their most basic needs. Under this regime, no one will have any venal motive for seeking a position of leadership, and those who are chosen to be guardians will govern solely from a concern to seek the welfare of the state in what is best for all of its citizens.
Having developed a general description of the structure of an ideal society, Plato maintained that the proper functions performed by its disparate classes, working together for the common good, provide a ready account of the need to develop significant social qualities or virtues.
Rulers
Wise Decisions
Soldiers
Courageous Actions
Farmers, Merchants, and other People
(Moderated Desires)
Notice that this myth (Gk. μυθος [mythos]) cuts both ways. It can certainly be used as a method of social control, by encouraging ordinary people to accept their position at the bottom of the heap, subject to governance by the higher classes. But Plato also held that the myth justifies severe restrictions on the life of the guardians: since they are already gifted with superior natures, they have no need for wealth or other external rewards. In fact, Plato held that guardians should own no private property, should live and eat together at government expense, and should earn no salary greater than necessary to supply their most basic needs. Under this regime, no one will have any venal motive for seeking a position of leadership, and those who are chosen to be guardians will govern solely from a concern to seek the welfare of the state in what is best for all of its citizens.
Having developed a general description of the structure of an ideal society, Plato maintained that the proper functions performed by its disparate classes, working together for the common good, provide a ready account of the need to develop significant social qualities or virtues.
- Since the rulers are responsible for making decisions according to which the entire city will be governed, they must have the virtue of wisdom (Gk. σοφια [sophía]), the capacity to comprehend reality and to make impartial judgments about it.
- Soldiers charged with the defense of the city against external and internal enemies, on the other hand, need the virtue of courage (Gk. ανδρεια [andreia]), the willingness to carry out their orders in the face of danger without regard for personal risk.
- The rest of the people in the city must follow its leaders instead of pursuing their private interests, so they must exhibit the virtue of moderation (Gk. σωφρσυνη [sophrosúnê]), the subordination of personal desires to a higher purpose.
Rulers
Wise Decisions
Soldiers
Courageous Actions
Farmers, Merchants, and other People
(Moderated Desires)
The Virtues in Human Souls
Remember that the basic plan of the Republic is to draw a systematic analogy between the operation of society as a whole and the life of any individual human being. So Plato supposed that people exhibit the same features, perform the same functions, and embody the same virtues that city-states do. Applying the analogy in this way presumes that each of us, like the state, is a complex whole made up of several distinct parts, each of which has its own proper role. But Plato argued that there is ample evidence of this in our everyday experience. When faced with choices about what to do, we commonly feel the tug of contrary impulses drawing us in different directions at once, and the most natural explanation for this phenomenon is to distinguish between distinct elements of our selves. (Republic 436b)
Thus, the analogy holds. In addition to the physical body, which corresponds to the land, buildings, and other material resources of a city, Plato held that every human being includes three souls (Gk. ψυχη [psychê]) that correspond to the three classes of citizen within the state, each of them contributing in its own way to the successful operation of the whole person.
Rational Soul (Thinking)
Wisdom
Spirited Soul (Willing)
Courage
Appetitive Soul (Feeling)
Moderation
In the context of his larger argument, Plato's theory of human nature provides the foundation for another answer to the question of why justice is better than injustice. On the view developed here, true justice is a kind of good health, attainable only through the harmonious cooperative effort of the three souls. In an unjust person, on the other hand, the disparate parts are in perpetual turmoil, merely coexisting with each other in an unhealthy, poorly-functioning, dis-integrated personality. Plato developed this theme in greater detail in the final books of The Republic.
==
CHAPTER ONE: BACKGROUND TO PLATO'S PHILOSOPHY 1.1 PLATO’S LIFE, FROM POLITICS TO PHILOSPHY.
Plato was born in Athens in 427 B.C. Until his mid-twenties, Athens was involved in a long and disastrous military conflict with Sparta, known as the Peloponnesian War. Although cherishing the hope of assuming a significant place in his political community, he found himself continually thwarted. Plato could not identify himself with any of the contending political parties or the succession of corrupt regimes, each of which brought Athens to further decline. The son of wealthy and influential Athenian parents, Plato began his philosophical career as a student of Socrates. When the master died, Plato travelled to Egypt and Italy, studied with students of Pythagoras, and spent several years advising the ruling family of Syracuse. Eventually, he returned to Athens and established his own school of philosophy, the Academy. Plato tried to pass on the heritage of a Socratic style of thinking and to guide students’ progress through mathematical learning to the achievement of abstract philosophical truth. 1The pre-Socratic philosophers were mostly interested in cosmology and ontology; Socrates’ concern was the opposite. In 399 when a democratic court voted by a
1Fine, Gail (ed): Plato I: Metaphysics and Epistemology and Plato II: Ethics, Politics, Religion and the Soul . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999
1
Page 7
His Academy, which provided a base for succeeding generations of Platonic philosophers until its final closure in 529 B.C, became the most famous teaching institution of the Hellenistic world. Mathematics, rhetoric, astronomy, dialectics, and other subjects, all seen as necessary for the education of philosophers and statesmen, were studied there. Some of Plato’s pupils later became leaders, mentors, and constitutional advisers in Greek city-states. His most renowned pupil was Aristotle. Plato died in c. 347 B.C.
1.2 THE THREEFOLD TASK OF POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY
The ideal state, according to Plato, is composed of three classes. The economic structure of the state is maintained by the merchant class. Security needs are met by the military class, and political leadership is provided by the philosopher-kings.
A particular person's class is determined by an educational process that begins at birth and proceeds until that person has reached the maximum level of education compatible with interest and ability.
Those who complete the entire educational process become philosopher-kings. They are the ones whose minds have been so developed that they are able to grasp the Forms and, therefore, to make the wisest decisions. Indeed, Plato's ideal educational system is primarily structured so as to produce philosopher-kings.
Plato associates the traditional Greek virtues with the class structure of the ideal state. Temperance is the unique virtue of the artisan class; courage is the virtue peculiar to the military class; and wisdom characterizes the rulers.
Justice, the fourth virtue, characterizes society as a whole. The just state is one in which each class performs its own function well without infringing on the activities of the other classes.
Plato divides the human soul into three parts: the rational part, the will, and the appetites. The just person is the one in whom the rational element, supported by the will, controls the appetites.
An obvious analogy exists here with the threefold class structure of the state, in which the enlightened philosopher-kings, supported by the soldiers, govern the rest of society.
1.3 THE QUEST FOR JUSTICE IN THE REPUBLIC
According to Plato, an ideal state possessed the four cardinal virtues of wisdom, courage, discipline and justice. One of the most fundamental ethical and political concepts is justice. It is a complex and ambiguous concept. It may refer to individual virtue, the order of society, as well as individual rights in contrast to the claims of the general social order 4.
In Book I of the Republic, Socrates and his interlocutors discuss the meaning of justice. Four definitions that report how the word “justice’’ is actually used are offered. Cephalus suggests the first definition. Justice is “speaking the truth and
4Berki, R.N: The History of Poliical Thought: A short Introduction. London: Dent. 1977. p.156
4
Page 14
After presenting his statement, Thrasymachus intends to leave as if he believed that what he said was so compelling that no further debate about justice was ever possible (Ibid, p.26). In the Republic he exemplifies the power of a dogma. Indeed he presents Socrates with a powerful challenge. Yet, whether or not what he said sounds attractive to anyone, Socrates is not convinced by the statement of his beliefs. Beliefs shape our lives as individuals, nations, ages, and civilizations. Should we really believe that justice [obeying laws] is really the good of another, the advantage of the stronger and the ruler, harmful to the one who obeys, while injustice [disobeying laws] is in one’s own advantage? The discussion between Socrates and his interlocutors is no longer about the meaning of “justice.” It takes the whole remainder of the Republic to present an argument in defense of justice as a universal value and the foundation of the best political order.
1.4 THE BEST POLITICAL ORDER
Plato’s political Philosophy is a blend of rigorous social nihilism and political affirmation. The nihilism springs from his desire to cleanse the political State of all the influences he saw as destructive of political unity. The mission of the Political community is the means whereby all the native powers and excellences of the individual are brought to fruition 11.
11Nisbet,R. The Social Philosophers. New York: ThomasY crowell Co. 1973.p25
10
Thus, the analogy holds. In addition to the physical body, which corresponds to the land, buildings, and other material resources of a city, Plato held that every human being includes three souls (Gk. ψυχη [psychê]) that correspond to the three classes of citizen within the state, each of them contributing in its own way to the successful operation of the whole person.
- The rational soul (mind or intellect) is the thinking portion within each of us, which discerns what is real and not merely apparent, judges what is true and what is false, and wisely makes the rational decisions in accordance with which human life is most properly lived.
- The spirited soul (will or volition), on the other hand, is the active portion; its function is to carry out the dictates of reason in practical life, courageously doing whatever the intellect has determined to be best.
- Finally, the appetitive soul (emotion or desire) is the portion of each of us that wants and feels many things, most of which must be deferred in the face of rational pursuits if we are to achieve a salutary degree of self-control.
Rational Soul (Thinking)
Wisdom
Spirited Soul (Willing)
Courage
Appetitive Soul (Feeling)
Moderation
In the context of his larger argument, Plato's theory of human nature provides the foundation for another answer to the question of why justice is better than injustice. On the view developed here, true justice is a kind of good health, attainable only through the harmonious cooperative effort of the three souls. In an unjust person, on the other hand, the disparate parts are in perpetual turmoil, merely coexisting with each other in an unhealthy, poorly-functioning, dis-integrated personality. Plato developed this theme in greater detail in the final books of The Republic.
==
CHAPTER ONE: BACKGROUND TO PLATO'S PHILOSOPHY 1.1 PLATO’S LIFE, FROM POLITICS TO PHILOSPHY.
Plato was born in Athens in 427 B.C. Until his mid-twenties, Athens was involved in a long and disastrous military conflict with Sparta, known as the Peloponnesian War. Although cherishing the hope of assuming a significant place in his political community, he found himself continually thwarted. Plato could not identify himself with any of the contending political parties or the succession of corrupt regimes, each of which brought Athens to further decline. The son of wealthy and influential Athenian parents, Plato began his philosophical career as a student of Socrates. When the master died, Plato travelled to Egypt and Italy, studied with students of Pythagoras, and spent several years advising the ruling family of Syracuse. Eventually, he returned to Athens and established his own school of philosophy, the Academy. Plato tried to pass on the heritage of a Socratic style of thinking and to guide students’ progress through mathematical learning to the achievement of abstract philosophical truth. 1The pre-Socratic philosophers were mostly interested in cosmology and ontology; Socrates’ concern was the opposite. In 399 when a democratic court voted by a
1Fine, Gail (ed): Plato I: Metaphysics and Epistemology and Plato II: Ethics, Politics, Religion and the Soul . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999
1
Page 7
His Academy, which provided a base for succeeding generations of Platonic philosophers until its final closure in 529 B.C, became the most famous teaching institution of the Hellenistic world. Mathematics, rhetoric, astronomy, dialectics, and other subjects, all seen as necessary for the education of philosophers and statesmen, were studied there. Some of Plato’s pupils later became leaders, mentors, and constitutional advisers in Greek city-states. His most renowned pupil was Aristotle. Plato died in c. 347 B.C.
1.2 THE THREEFOLD TASK OF POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY
The ideal state, according to Plato, is composed of three classes. The economic structure of the state is maintained by the merchant class. Security needs are met by the military class, and political leadership is provided by the philosopher-kings.
A particular person's class is determined by an educational process that begins at birth and proceeds until that person has reached the maximum level of education compatible with interest and ability.
Those who complete the entire educational process become philosopher-kings. They are the ones whose minds have been so developed that they are able to grasp the Forms and, therefore, to make the wisest decisions. Indeed, Plato's ideal educational system is primarily structured so as to produce philosopher-kings.
Plato associates the traditional Greek virtues with the class structure of the ideal state. Temperance is the unique virtue of the artisan class; courage is the virtue peculiar to the military class; and wisdom characterizes the rulers.
Justice, the fourth virtue, characterizes society as a whole. The just state is one in which each class performs its own function well without infringing on the activities of the other classes.
Plato divides the human soul into three parts: the rational part, the will, and the appetites. The just person is the one in whom the rational element, supported by the will, controls the appetites.
An obvious analogy exists here with the threefold class structure of the state, in which the enlightened philosopher-kings, supported by the soldiers, govern the rest of society.
1.3 THE QUEST FOR JUSTICE IN THE REPUBLIC
According to Plato, an ideal state possessed the four cardinal virtues of wisdom, courage, discipline and justice. One of the most fundamental ethical and political concepts is justice. It is a complex and ambiguous concept. It may refer to individual virtue, the order of society, as well as individual rights in contrast to the claims of the general social order 4.
In Book I of the Republic, Socrates and his interlocutors discuss the meaning of justice. Four definitions that report how the word “justice’’ is actually used are offered. Cephalus suggests the first definition. Justice is “speaking the truth and
4Berki, R.N: The History of Poliical Thought: A short Introduction. London: Dent. 1977. p.156
4
Page 14
After presenting his statement, Thrasymachus intends to leave as if he believed that what he said was so compelling that no further debate about justice was ever possible (Ibid, p.26). In the Republic he exemplifies the power of a dogma. Indeed he presents Socrates with a powerful challenge. Yet, whether or not what he said sounds attractive to anyone, Socrates is not convinced by the statement of his beliefs. Beliefs shape our lives as individuals, nations, ages, and civilizations. Should we really believe that justice [obeying laws] is really the good of another, the advantage of the stronger and the ruler, harmful to the one who obeys, while injustice [disobeying laws] is in one’s own advantage? The discussion between Socrates and his interlocutors is no longer about the meaning of “justice.” It takes the whole remainder of the Republic to present an argument in defense of justice as a universal value and the foundation of the best political order.
1.4 THE BEST POLITICAL ORDER
Plato’s political Philosophy is a blend of rigorous social nihilism and political affirmation. The nihilism springs from his desire to cleanse the political State of all the influences he saw as destructive of political unity. The mission of the Political community is the means whereby all the native powers and excellences of the individual are brought to fruition 11.
11Nisbet,R. The Social Philosophers. New York: ThomasY crowell Co. 1973.p25
10
Extremists Flourish in Abe Shinzo’s Japan
Many Japanese and long-time Japan observers have expressed dismay about the recrudescence of self-righteous nationalism under PM Abe Shinzo who has emboldened rightwing extremists now threatening democratic institutions, civil liberties and Japan’s relations with its neighbors.Nakano Koichi, a professor of political science at Sophia University, comments, “The revisionist right in Japan with the active encouragement, if not involvement, of the Abe government has succeeded in controlling NHK news, intimidating Asahi Shimbun, and now academia.”
Abe has presided over the mainstreaming of reactionary extremism in his quest to rewrite and rehabilitate Japan’s dishonorable wartime past in Asia and in doing so instigates widespread international criticism. Any other national leader who did the same for their nation’s egregious history would merit a similar reaction.
Recently Hokusei University in Sapporo moved to fire part-time lecturer Uemura Takashi, a former Asahi Shimbun journalist, because rightwing goons have threatened violence if he isn’t removed. The provisional decision not to renew Uemura’s contract came under duress, the president pointedly emphasizing the university’s lack of resources to cope with the threats to student safety. Since the spring, the university has been inundated with threatening letters and phone calls demanding the teacher’s dismissal for his controversial articles in the 1990s about the comfort women system.
What started as a clash over history has morphed into a broader political battle over national identity and Japan’s democratic values. Nakano worries that, “each time a university succumbs to right wing intimidation, ‘success’ encourages more terrorist threats.”
Reactionaries maintain that the Asahi and its reporters tarnished Japan’s international reputation, but as Hokkaido University historian Philip Seaton explains, it is the “efforts by a small but powerful minority in Japan to deny atrocities that sullies Japan’s name in international eyes.”
These reactionaries are now inflicting infinitely more damage on Japan’s reputation than a handful of newspaper articles in the 1990s. It is scandalous that the so-called Net Right of extremists, lurking behind pseudonyms and spewing ill-informed vitriol on the Internet, are eroding democratic freedoms, censoring inconvenient truths and degrading Japan’s image internationally.
As Martin Fackler of the New York Times recently wrote (10/29/2014), these cyberactivists, “have gained an outsize influence with the rise of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s conservative government, which shares the goal of ending negative portrayal of Japan’s history, and with the acquiescence of a society too uninterested or scared to speak out.” Fackler goes on to note several examples around Japan where the Net Right has imposed its agenda through thuggery.
Japan’s cyber-terrorists sound like religious extremists, threatening “divine retribution” in the form of gas canisters packed with nails. By stopping towns from erecting repentant war memorials, caterwauling on the Internet and scaring employers into firing ‘undesirables’, these vigilantes represent Japan in jackboots. This evokes the 1930s when ultranationalists hounded respected academics such as Tatsukichi Minobe and Tadao Yanaihara from their posts, acts that coincided with a wave of assassinations.
The Net Right is the cutting edge of Japan’s 21st century McCarthyism, reminiscent of an era when communist hysteria in the US unleashed a witch-hunt in the 1940s and 1950s that trampled on democratic freedoms.
Seaton insists that, “defending academic freedom must be sacrosanct. To terminate the ex-Asahi reporter’s contract simply sends the message that “intimidation works”. This incident could initiate a dangerous slide toward the muzzling and dismissal of researchers working on sensitive issues.”
Andrew Horvat, former president of the Foreign Correspondents Club of Japan, points out that Uemura ” has been caught in the cross fire of a proxy war on the comfort women issue. The aim of the rightists is to undermine the reputation of the Asahi, a liberal paper and he has become a pawn in this game.”
Tomomi Yamaguchi, a professor of Anthropology at Montana State University says that Uemura has been on the right’s hit list from the mid-2000s largely due to vilification by Nishioka Tsutomu, a professor at Tokyo Christian University.
Satoku Norimatsu, director of the Vancouver-based Peace Philosophy Centre, speculates that Hokusei itself is a target because of its 1995 Peace Declaration that goes much further than the Murayama Statement in acknowledging Japan’s war responsibility and obligation to atone. Back then PM Murayama Tomiichi condemned Japanese aggression in Asia and called for an end to the “self righteous nationalism” currently embraced by the Net Right.
Andrew DeWit, a professor of public policy at Rikkyo University, asserts that, “The Abe regime has clearly abetted this mobilization of right-wing extremists against academic, media and other institutions.”
“Allowing extremists to intimidate academe will not foster the learning environment that Japanese universities require in order to become the ‘super global universities’ envisioned in Abenomics”, DeWit explains. “You cannot have it both ways, winking at ultra-nationalism that targets academe while at the same time actually building globally competitive institutions of critical inquiry.”Alexis Dudden, a professor of history at the University of Connecticut, argues that post-1945 Japan has advanced because of, “the ability to study, learn, and teach in an open atmosphere. Since then, Japanese society and all who engage with it have benefited and thrived because of this fundamental freedom guaranteed in the 1947 Constitution.” In her view, “ Turning away now degrades Japan’s capacities to lead and defines a “safe” society as one that cowers from bullies and sanitizes history to fit contingent political demands.”
Sven Saaler, a professor of history at Sophia University, notes that, ”right-wingers have been pushing their agenda constantly with violence. They have actually violently attacked journalists, newspaper offices, and politicians.” Likewise, Mark Mullins, Professor of Japanese Studies at the University of Auckland, warns that, “Threats from right-wing activists have to be taken seriously. Recall that in 1990 Nagasaki Mayor Motoshima Hitoshi was shot by rightists for expressing his views about the Emperor and war responsibility; and in 2006 Katō Kōichi, a moderate LDP politician, had his house in Yamagata burned down for his criticism of Prime Minister Koizumi’s visits to Yasukuni Shrine.”
Saaler sees a broader pattern: “In recent years, pressure by right-wing groups has led to cinemas cancelling movies dealing with sensitive, war-related issues; hotels cancelling the reservations of conference rooms for symposia dealing with such issues; and museums cancelling or revising exhibitions with sensitive contents.”
Under Abe, Norimatsu believes the situation is worsening as, “widespread anti-China and anti-Korea sentiments, books of that kind becoming bestsellers, hate demonstrations, assault on history by the nation’s leaders that trickles down to the general public, page-ripping of Anne Frank’s diaries, hiding of Barefoot Gen in school libraries, assault on protest tents in Okinawa and anti-nuclear tents in Tokyo, and public places refusing to rent space to groups that discuss issues like the constitution and anti-nuclear power.”
Amid this rightist chill, Mullins worries that,” Academic freedom—and freedom of speech more broadly—is clearly threatened and is a legitimate concern for those who care about the future of democracy in Japan.”
Nakano laments that, “when an important principle of liberal democracy is under attack, the government should be playing an active role to condemn the attacks in strongest terms”, but instead is fanning the fires.
Saaler concludes, “The situation can be compared to Weimar Germany, where the authorities turned a blind eye to right-wing activities and let right-wing violence go largely unpunished.” Here we remain far from descending into that Nazi abyss, but government tolerance for intolerance and hooliganism makes a mockery of the rule of law, democratic norms and the Olympic spirit.
(Readers interested in the Hokusei affair are referred to the Foreign Correspondents Club of Japan press conference by Koichi Nakano and Jiro Yamaguchi)
Jeff Kingston is the Director of Asian Studies, Temple University Japan. He is the editor of Natural Disaster and Nuclear Crisis in Japan: Response and Recovery after Japan’s 3/11, Routledge 2012 and the author of Contemporary Japan. (2ndedition), Wiley 2013.
"We Have Been Captured... We Are Parented, Not Represented"
bmitted by Tyler Durden on 01/16/2015 22:20 -0500Today I was debating the idea of Western domination. And one of the things that came up was the idea of how ‘lucky’ the world is that China and Russia have been able to maintain a sense of independence from the Western front. Imagine a world completely unchallenged by Western dominance, which we know is precisely the goal of our ambitious Western leaders. The goal, as stated by many Western leaders including George Bush Senior whilst President in an address to the nation, is to come to some New World Order of centralized control, with unified laws and principles enforced from one power centre.
Currently Western foreign and monetary policy are controlled and enforced by this central power centre. That is clear given that the policy objectives are unified whilst their implications are broad and even conflicting. What I mean by that is while the policy is embraced by all Western nations the implication of the policies go from being negligible, like here in the US, to economically crushing like in Europe. So if foreign policy decisions were fragmented amongst Western nations the harsh implications of such policies would prevent those respective nations from supporting such policy decisions. But the policies are supported, if not by the people of those nations (refer to farmers burning down of the Ministry of Agriculture building in France), then by their respective political classes and thus must be being decided as a central power.
Given the desperate position the Western rulers are willing to put French and German farmers (and so many more European industries) in for the ‘perceived greater good’, imagine the lack of representation for any group or individual under the thumb of a global central power. Especially without the distraction of overcoming challengers like the Chinese and Russians. Consider the difficulty just here in America, reportedly the beacon of democracy around the world (I choked that out btw), of making the people’s will relevant to the legislative process. If we were being ruled from some global centre 5000 miles away it would be virtually impossible to be heard let alone to impact policy. Things like tax policies would be based on the needs of people we will never know or understand and our incomes and capital would be pillaged without accountability to those pillaging.
All wealth creation by the working class would be vacuumed into some General Fund that would be unexplained by those who control it. Similar to the Commerce Dept General Fund that takes in all those ‘fines’ from the banking sector…. about $350 billion over the past 5 years. What ever comes of that money?? Well we will never know because that money is the proverbial rainy day fund that is outside of budgetary line items; a magical cookie jar if you will for whenever a politician gets a sweet tooth. Isn’t it curious we never hear where that money taken as punishment for crimes committed against we the people goes? What a fantastic little practice of racketeering. And how great that practice of racketeering would grow under a central global government unaccountable to the faces of those being oppressed. But I digress.
Back to the point. The fact that Russia and China remain outside the event horizon of Western domination has literally saved citizens of the world from absolute enslavement. Yet we are saturated with propaganda that would have us believe the promise land of a New World Order must be our goal and will be attained when the Russians, who have been labelled one of the world’s top three dangers, are safely caged. And so our military will attempt to constrain the Russian people like a fully lucid person admitted to an insane asylum against their will by those who have the ‘moral authority’ to do so in the name of what they say is best. However, if it were not for Russia and China all that propaganda and aggression would be pointed against those of us not willing to relinquish our natural rights of freedom to those who believe they have the natural right to take it from us. In short, our lives would be devoid of any sense of freedom as it was promised to us by our founding fathers.
And so before you sign up for seminars like William Kristol’s Tikvah Advanced Studies Institute on the origns of war, perhaps you should do a bit of research on your own. Kristol’s Tikvah site discusses Donald Kagan’s book titled ‘Origins of War: And the Preservation of Peace’. In the book, Kagan (father-in-law to Victoria Nuland, the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs at the United States Department of State who was unknowingly recorded planning the Ukranian coup), suggests that “To too many in the modern world, the word power has an unpleasant ring to it”. I literally laughed out loud as his slight perversion of the truth is so unintendedly slapstick comical yet so coy it makes me picture Kagan as Wile E. Coyote.
If Kagan wasn’t either a liar or an idiot, or both, the quote would have read “Regardless of the times, the word power has an unpleasant ring to it to those not in power”. You have to love these self proclaimed “intellectuals” (seriously that’s what they call themselves in every bio I could find – intellectuals! – I can only assume W. E. Coyote would be proud). And so before spending money on a seminar to learn the origins of war, allow me to offer you the following evidence for free.
For nothing says preservation of peace like recommending America “fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars”, against, well apparently the enemy is irrelevant. According to the above key findings from yet another lobby effort by the world’s #1 armchair soldiers, William Kristol and Donald Kagan, it is recommended that America send its young men and women to kill and be killed against various arbitrary ‘enemies’, in this report sent to the Clinton Administration in September 2000. But don’t get all worked up. Peace and free-dum luv’n Willy Kristol recommends this in the name of peace preservation, in fact, he suggests it is precisely because the US was in the midst of the most peaceful period of the previous 100 that America needed to start some wars.
This is the kind of insane sadistic and soulless moron that will be setting policy for the central single authority called the New World Order. And so don’t hold it against me if I suggest that it is straight from whatever mystical order defines the laws of the universe that Russia and China have remained independent of Western authority. The fact that Russia, having one of the few untapped energy reserves large enough to feed the Chinese industrial beast, managed to fend off her enemies over the past 100 years, which have been plentiful and powerful, is an alignment of the moons that could only be divine in nature.
So before we succumb to the media muppets touting the message of the morons like Willy Kristol, let’s please take this slowly. And for those of you who generally get your current news from mainstream media don’t let the silence lull you into believing we are not right this minute sending vast stacks of cash and weaponry to engage the Russians in war. We are. Mindfully understand that Russia’s independence and China’s ability to humble Western ambitions have been absolutely fundamental to the slowing of attrition of freedom throughout the Western world. Believe it or not we would be frightfully further down the rabbit hole had it not been for those bumps in the yellow brick road toward the New World Order.
I caution you to acknowledge that the Western philosopher kings repeatedly call on us serfs to sacrifice our young men and women, to fight faceless, nameless arbitrary enemies and in the name of peace no less. Kristol and his political goons explicitly recommended just such human sacrifices in black and white directly to the President of the United States in the report above. And remember it was not more than a year after that report was delivered to the President that the great catalyst event that paved the way for us to fight the faceless, nameless “Terrorism”, took place. And note these are the same folks that signed those other reports I wrote about recently in the well received, “The Most Essential Lessons of History that No One Wants to Admit”. The same folks that were appointed to positions like Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Defense Policy Board just months before the catalyst event for the multiple wars against faceless, nameless terrorists. Quite a bloody coincidence to say the least.
If you are at all on the fence about any of this ask yourself, how many wars has Russia started in the past 20 years, what percent of Russia’s total budget expenditures is allocated to military, who is putting who’s military weaponry on who’s borders? And then think about the absolutely alarming absurdity of the message that America preserve the most peaceful period of the 20th century for the new millennium by starting multiple arbitrary wars, which we’ve now done. And then remember the careers of the men behind such policies have been spent finding ways to use America’s wealth and military to benefit Israel. And they surround themselves with others whose careers have been mired by similar disgraceful self serving agendas (MIC). Put this latest report in context with the letter and report from my previous article and well we’d have to be the fools Kristol believes us to be not to see that America is being egregiously exploited for the benefit of foreign nations.
Remember “We cannot overestimate the fervent love of liberty, the intelligent courage and the sum of common sense with which our fathers made the great experiment of SELF-GOVERNMENT”. That is a quote by President James Garfield prior to his assassination by the predecessors of those who manipulate our nation today. Perhaps we should listen to Putin when he defines Russia as a sovereignty not to be rolled into some mosaic of nations for the purpose of ease of rule.
Self-government is the gift our founding fathers made possible and out of lack of respect for the sacrifices of the past, the constitutional rights of the present and the freedoms of future Americans we allow it to be traded for a comfortable existence. We must stop and truly understand the concept of self-government as it was meant to be and then mentally reconcile that with the current state of our government.
We are parented not represented. We are enslaved with encroaching laws that are demeaning to rational self sufficient adults. And by a legislative body that feeds from our bosom, fights with our fists and has buried us in debt to a foreign body who they sold the rights to our currency. How is this in any way a self-governed society? We have been captured by a group of fraudulent citizens who control our money, our military and have desecrated our constitution. It requires that we take back control and punish these traitors appropriately severe so as to deter any future attempts. This is our obligation, our payback and our paying it forward for the gift that we received but failed initially to respect.
No comments:
Post a Comment