In other words we have reached the stage where what the overwhelming majority of the public believes is irredeemably false. Writers like Kay are actively involved in ensuring this situation continues.

It is the Orwellian endpoint to which Bernays and all the mind control propagandists since have brought us.

Ignorance is strength.

In an argument between Jonathan Kay and the caged Myna bird in my local pub my money would be on the bird every time!

-”I remember reading this Save the Males article on the business plot before. It is actually one of the more reasoned articles he wrote”

The “he” I was referring to in my previous post was Henry Makow, the often kooky webmaster of savethemales.ca

I remember reading this Save the Males article on the business plot before. It is actually one of the more reasoned articles he wrote. Similar arguments to this were made by Anthony Sutton in his book “FDR and Wall Street.” A link to the relevant chapter is available below.

http://www.reformation.org/wall-st-fdr-ch10.html

Mae Brussel
Dave Emory
Dr. Joseph Farrell
Benjamin Fulford

All are advocates of the “underground reich”/Operation Paper Clip/Bush family conspiracy geneology.

The example he chose to try to prove that a major conspiracy could never be kept under wraps for long was typical of the charlatan he is. Yes Smedley Butler went to the press to reveal he’d been offered the lead role in a coup against FDR. That much is true. But an outspoken critic of war for bankers was hardly likely to back a bankers’ coup was he. The whole event was scam to make FDR look like an enemy of the bankers. The bankster-controlled commie press (New Masses et al) went into overdrive covering the banking and arms cartels that had supposedly financed the “coup”.

It was a scam. Typically Kay hadn’t done his research: http://www.savethemales.ca/002094.html

You are right, The Republic sounds totalitarian, but it’s just Plato’s proposal to replace the timocracy-oligarchy-democracy-tyranny endless cycle. As democracy fails and gives rise to tyranny, he suggests to take the power away from the mob and into the hands of morally virtuous men (the guardians). We would not agree on everything he proposes, but the general idea I worth a shot IMO. We have to put ourselves living two thousand years ago to be able to grasp these concepts.

Overall “truth movement” criticism to Plato and Pythagoras I find it to be misleading. So I feel the need to share these thoughts with people I respect to get an outside objective opinion as feedback.

Back to Tarpley: in Jones’ interview, he demonized Hayek and then called Milton Friedman a fascist (which I find outrageous). But he did not mention Keynes until later when he linked him to Malthus briefly. This I find very odd, as Keynes was quite a character.
http://www.keynesatharvard.org/
http://praxisblog.wordpress.com/2008/11/18/keynes-on-marx-and-malthus/

I did get a kick of “me gold”

I know there’s the old argument that The Republic might have been meant as an analogy rather than something meant to be taken literally but that still remains a theoretical position at best and I’m not entirely convinced that it’s the case. Anyway, assuming the model of government discussed by Socrates in Republic is indeed meant to be taken literally it is fair to say that it calls for a kind of totalitarian socialism.

Here I’m going by Benjamin Jowett’s translation of the Republic, which can be found online at:

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.1.introduction.html.

Sadly, I’m too lazy to go through the whole thing and cite each of my individual claims but from memory here are some I things I thought rang more than a little totalitarian.

All citizens will be taken from their parents at birth and raised in a state run education system, the purpose of which is to determine whether they are best suited to be part of the ruler class, the guardian class or the worker class. Once this is determined they will be told that the memories they have of their years of education were merely a dream they were having as their bodies grew in the earth. They will be told that each of them grew from gold, silver or bronze seeds; (representing rulers, guardians and workers respectively) the type of seed one grew from predetermines what class one will fit into. This is commonly known as ‘the noble lie’ and is meant to assure that citizens won’t rebel against their respective lot in life and thereby upset the system. To ensure the production of the best guardians, rulers and workers, the state would dictate who should breed with whom. Any child conceived in an unsanctioned union is summarily aborted. Additionally, as you correctly observed, guardians are not permitted to own property, which is meant to prevent them from becoming corrupt.

Perhaps my memory is spotty and some of the above only applied to the guardians specifically, however that doesn’t really neutralize my criticism since the system is still totalitarian even if it is only carried out on some of the citizens rather than all of them. Nobody chooses of his or her own free will to be a guardian.

I generally agree with the sentiment of Socrates’ cave analogy and share his frustration with worldly politics, however I think the problem with Republic is the same with so many other utopian systems, it presupposes the impossibly of morally perfect human rulers. For that reason I think a somewhat weaker form of government with a balance of powers is preferable. I seem to recall hearing that The Laws represents a somewhat more balanced and refined version of Plato’s political theories but I’ve only read a few random chapters of it so I can’t say for sure.

Also it looks like the Tarpley/Jones dialogue is bearing more fruit. I still think Tarpley’s Manichean ‘blame Britain for everything’ thesis is a little myopic but Jones has at long last let him talk about the link between the Money Power and Austrian Economics. It’s certainly worth a listen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4MahRKtM5s&feature=BFa&list=UUvsye7V9psc-APX6wV1twLg

Now, regarding Plato being pro totalitarian socialism, would you please refer me to your sources? From what I’ve read so far, the accusations are generally taken out of context. For example, rules that apply only to the “guardians”, are taken as they were for the general population. In practice, Plato’s Republic model don’t have much in common with totalitarian collectivism IMHO.

I hope to get further insight on this subject, as I agree with Tarpley on the importance of philosophy on solving social problems.

At least now we have a better handle on the dirigist/collectivist proclivities of Larouche et al. Seems like in the Corbett interview Tarpley was advocating for Plato’s “philosopher kings” … or did I hear that wrong? In any case, I do agree with your first link that he has a lot of splaining to do on his Larouchite activities.

The most pressing thing for the states is to break the two-party monopoly, even enact laws to ensure that this happens. Ron Paul is a perfect example: he had to choose what he thought was the lesser of the evils to get a chance at being elected to Congress.

Personally, I’m glad that I live in Canada, and feel that the Parliamentary system is superior, if only for the fact that it generally allows for greater accountability and say from a multiplicity of Parties.