I wonder why Jews were never expelled from US. Maybe because they control the US since the beginning?
You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
3
TallestSkil on scored.co
1 year ago3 points(+0/-0/+3Score on mirror)1 child
>Tallest, I wrote a comment recently describing democracy as the social propaganda of an ethnic oligarchy. What do you think of that description and if you disagree with the phrase "ethnic oligarchy", how would you describe our system?
The problem, as always, comes from jews perverting our language. The Founders created a *republic* modeled after the old Greek and Roman styles. Thing is, Greek republicanism was also known (to them) as “democracy.” But that word *explicitly meant* “only people of our ethnic group can vote, and only those who owned land, and only men.”
> “For Aristotle, **democracy is possible only within homogeneous ethnic groups**, while despots have always reigned over highly fragmented societies. **A multi-ethnic society is thus necessarily anti-democratic and chaotic**, for it lacks philia, this profound, flesh-and-blood fraternity of citizens. Tyrants and despots divide and rule, they want the City divided by ethnic rivalries. The indispensable condition for ensuring a people’s sovereignty accordingly resides in its unity. Ethnic chaos prevents all philia from developing… Civic spirit, like public safety, social harmony, and solidarity, is based not on education or persuasion alone, but on cultural unanimity — on common values, lifestyles, and innate behaviours.” **~ Guillaume Faye**; *Why We Fight*; 2011
Jefferson’s views were identical.
>“**There is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents.** Formerly bodily powers gave place among the aristoi. But since the invention of gunpowder has armed the weak as well as the strong with missile death, bodily strength, like beauty, good humor, politeness and other accomplishments, has become but an auxiliary ground of distinction. There is also an artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents; for with these it would belong to the first class. **The natural aristocracy I consider as the most precious gift of nature for the instruction, the trusts, and government of society.** And indeed it would have been inconsistent in creation to have formed man for the social state, and not to have provided virtue and wisdom enough to manage the concerns of the society. May we not even say that that form of government is the best which provides the most effectually for a pure selection of these natural aristoi into the offices of government? **The artificial aristocracy is a mischievous ingredient in government, and provision should be made to prevent its ascendancy.**” **~ Thomas Jefferson**; letter to John Adams; [October 28, 1813](https://archive.is/Fd8IQ)
The Founders created the United States as a **monoethnic patriarchal timocracy.** That’s not what it is anymore, though.
Now, you are describing what the country is supposed to be in documentation and not what the country is in its current state of function, right? Or do you mean to use timocracy to refer to the jewish system of values, making the case that it is currently a timocracy from a zionist perspective?
My idea was that democracy should be classified as the name of a category of propaganda associated with real forms of government, and I'd like to name our current form of govt in the USA without resorting to calling it a republic, because I view that word as being related to democracy in that a former republic will continue to refer to itself that way for tactical reasons long after becoming dominated by some other form of organizational machinery.
Occupation is environmental and contextual and not baked into the actual letter of current system, so I wanted to avoid it and focus on exactly what system has been generated under occupation, and I came to the word oligarchy as well. I couldnt resist inserting the word "ethnic" because the context of the occupation is so fundamental to it, but I think according to my own logic the answer is simply "democracy is the social propaganda of an oligarchy".
The problem, as always, comes from jews perverting our language. The Founders created a *republic* modeled after the old Greek and Roman styles. Thing is, Greek republicanism was also known (to them) as “democracy.” But that word *explicitly meant* “only people of our ethnic group can vote, and only those who owned land, and only men.”
> “For Aristotle, **democracy is possible only within homogeneous ethnic groups**, while despots have always reigned over highly fragmented societies. **A multi-ethnic society is thus necessarily anti-democratic and chaotic**, for it lacks philia, this profound, flesh-and-blood fraternity of citizens. Tyrants and despots divide and rule, they want the City divided by ethnic rivalries. The indispensable condition for ensuring a people’s sovereignty accordingly resides in its unity. Ethnic chaos prevents all philia from developing… Civic spirit, like public safety, social harmony, and solidarity, is based not on education or persuasion alone, but on cultural unanimity — on common values, lifestyles, and innate behaviours.” **~ Guillaume Faye**; *Why We Fight*; 2011
Jefferson’s views were identical.
>“**There is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents.** Formerly bodily powers gave place among the aristoi. But since the invention of gunpowder has armed the weak as well as the strong with missile death, bodily strength, like beauty, good humor, politeness and other accomplishments, has become but an auxiliary ground of distinction. There is also an artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents; for with these it would belong to the first class. **The natural aristocracy I consider as the most precious gift of nature for the instruction, the trusts, and government of society.** And indeed it would have been inconsistent in creation to have formed man for the social state, and not to have provided virtue and wisdom enough to manage the concerns of the society. May we not even say that that form of government is the best which provides the most effectually for a pure selection of these natural aristoi into the offices of government? **The artificial aristocracy is a mischievous ingredient in government, and provision should be made to prevent its ascendancy.**” **~ Thomas Jefferson**; letter to John Adams; [October 28, 1813](https://archive.is/Fd8IQ)
The Founders created the United States as a **monoethnic patriarchal timocracy.** That’s not what it is anymore, though.
My idea was that democracy should be classified as the name of a category of propaganda associated with real forms of government, and I'd like to name our current form of govt in the USA without resorting to calling it a republic, because I view that word as being related to democracy in that a former republic will continue to refer to itself that way for tactical reasons long after becoming dominated by some other form of organizational machinery.
Supposed to be, yeah.
>Or do you mean to use timocracy to refer to the jewish system of values, making the case that it is currently a timocracy from a zionist perspective?
Well, neither. I’m just using what the word means.
>I'd like to name our current form of govt in the USA without resorting to calling it a republic
Foreign occupied territory overseen by oligarchical appointment.