Endgame! IV.

Greetings!

We continue our survey of Platonism and its effects on the Leftist movements we know and love: Marxism and Feminism.

Tonight we are going to focus more on the links between Marxism and Plato, with a dash of National Socialism added for flavor.

First up is The Logical and the Real in Political Theory: Plato, Aristotle, and Marx by Charles N. R. McCoy.




(Plato and Aristotle)






(Georg Hegel, instructor of Marx.)


The author writes:

“An immediate and important insight into the significance of Greek political philosophy may be gained by examining an observation made upon it by Karl Marx. The fact that Marx’s observation is fundamentally erroneous does not prevent it from being profoundly suggestive. Marx observed, in the course of his doctoral dissertation, On the Differences between the Natural Philosophy of Democritus and Epicurus, that the character of the philosophical world after the death of Aristotle in the Fourth Century B.C. was similar to that of the philosophical world after the death of Hegel in the Nineteenth Century (p. 1058).”

A footnote on the same page states:

“It has been pointed out that Marx expressly mentions the fact that the subject for his doctoral dissertation was suggested by his awareness of the parallel between the post Aristotelian philosophy and the post Hegelian philosophy (p. 1058).”

Like any serious student of philosophy, Marx was undoubtedly well versed in the works of Plato and Aristotle .

“… the fundamental affinity between Marx and Plato, as the disaffinity between Plato and Aristotle, is found in the Platonic assumption that the individual is nothing if not the species (p. 1062).”

Indeed.

“Plato… by holding that the universal of predication has real existence—man in general exists, society in general exists—makes more easily possible the conclusion that Marx will draw… that every individual man is conscious of himself as being both individual and species (p. 1062).”

Marx writes that, “Communism poses the negation as a negation: it is consequently the real element, and indispensable to the historic development of the future, to human emancipation, and the recovery of human dignity. Communism is the necessary form and organic principle of the immediate future, but communism is not itself the goal of human education, --the form of human society (p. 1066).”

Mr. McCoy asserts that:

“Marx simply completed a modern trend---that by transposing the whole order of nature to the domination of man: its accomplishment by revolutionary “practice” is preceded by a speculative conquest in identifying the order of things in nature with the order which reason puts in its own acts. To do this is to destroy science and to replace it with myth—the myth of Plato’s philosopher king or the myth of the dictatorship of the proletariat (p. 1066).”

Mr. McCoy, in my view[aa], is right on the money.

Marx, by abolishing "The Law of Heaven" and disregarding God's (Blessed be He), Laws and Commandments, and by constituting a new man to take the place of the old, has drawn on Platonic ideals. As we will see, Plato recommended massive social engineering, complete with censorship, "Noble Lies"[i][ii], and the like, in order to bring about his vision of the ideal State.

Marx and company attempted to bring Plato's ideals to fruition.

Moving to our second piece, we have The Ethics of Communism, by John Laird.

Mr. Laird writes:

“Marxists, Lenin goes on, have always desired the abolition of the State; but first the proletariat must capture the State machinery, and having captured it, must consolidate. This, he continues, “the equality of all citizens, irrespective of sex, religion, race, or nationality, which was always and everywhere promised, but never carried out by the bourgeois democracy, and, indeed, never could be carried out under capitalism, is immediately and amply realized by the Soviet power, or, in other words, by proletarian dictatorship; but the dictatorship of the workers can achieve this equality because have no private property interest either in production or in the struggle for distribution or redistribution (p. 200).”

Sadly, we now know where this kind of rhetoric leads[a][b], and we also know how it all ended, in a lake of fire and blood.

If it were the case that Marxism, or feminism, for that matter, didn't have the horrible track record of abuse and suffering, murder and discontent that they have amassed over the years, I would not criticize them as much as I do.

However, there is ample proof that both feminism and Marxism are destructive hate movements that, upon hindsight, will be forever discredited in front of the sight of the multitudes.

Getting back to the Ethics of Communism:

“ Quite apart, then, from the amazing political experiment of Moscow and Leningrad, we have to ask what communism in general means, and on what ethical grounds so many thinkers like Plato or More, or Godwin have discerned in
it an ideal of surpassing worth (p. 200).”

According to Laird:

“In a well known passage in the Laws Plato argues as follows: “That city,” he says, “is the most perfect in which men practice to the letter the ancient saying that all is really in common among friends, so that wives are in common, children are in common, useful commodities of all sorts are in common, and the greatest care is taken to banish even the name of property from the transactions of life in order that the very things which nature, strictly speaking, has given to every man shall become in a manner common to all, that all citizens may fancy themselves to live, think, and eat in common, and that their joys and their sorrows may turn on the same things (p.200-201).”

Now this is an interesting passage that deserves our attention.

Wives in common? Could this be one of the reasons why elite men, despite all the havoc and destruction that feminism has wrought, continue to give it aid and comfort?

Dinesh D'Souza, author of the book, The Enemy At Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11, writes:

"I believe the reason why feminism prevailed so easily is that from the beginning, the feminists had the tact support of many men. Contrary to the predictions of the feminists, the patriarchy offered no serious resistance to women's liberation. Many men realized that feminists were championing something men have always sought, something that the ethic of the nuclear family denied them. Men discovered in women's liberation a means to have sex with many women without having to marry or support any of them. This was even better than polygamy, which allowed men to have multiple wives but required the husband to look after all of them. Consequently many men--especially rich, powerful men looking to expand their options---enthusiastically backed the feminist goal of liberation (D'Souza, The Enemy At Home, p. 170)."

Once more[1], I must repeat that FEMINISM IS NOT THE REAL ENEMY. They are mere handmaidens to the powerful money-men and others that run the show, behind the scenes.

The feminists themselves are nothing more than useful idiots; the lay followers of feminist teachings are grossly misinformed at best.

Finally, we close with the essay, Would Plato Have Approved of the National-Socialist State by R. F. Alfred Hoernlé.

He writes:



(Mussolini and Hitler)





(Lenin and Stalin)

“We may conveniently enter upon our study by meeting, at the very outset, a possible but irrelevant objection. I am sure to be asked: “Do you seriously mean to suggest that Plato’s philosopher-kings would have been men like Mussolini and Hitler, like Lenin or Stalin, or that they would have held the theories of any one of these (p.167-168)?”

...invoking Plato’s distinction between the true philosopher-king and the tyrant. Both are dictators, in the sense that they wield absolute power supported by military force. But this is the only point they have in common. For the tyrant is obeyed only because he can enforce obedience by physical force: the philosopher king… is a “leader” who can rely on the loyal obedience of his people. The tyrant has no philosophy, no vision of the good; he uses his power for personal aggrandizement and the indulgence of his private lusts: the philosopher king makes himself the selfless instrument of this high service...

...And so we come back to the point: the philosopher king of the Republic is best understood by analogy with the modern dictator who is, or claims to be, a “leader” and is obeyed by his genuine followers because of their faith in him and the good for which he stands, and which for them, and with their help, he strives to realize (p.169).”

“Turning, then, after these preliminaries, to the technique of dictatorship, what points of similarity between the Platonic and the National-Social systems can we discover?

There is, first, the authoritarian principle in the name of the good of the people… according to the authoritarian principle, the good which the people wills is to be interpreted and realized, not by the majority vote at some election or in the lobbies of Parliament, but by the decision and command of a public spirited dictator who leads the people to their own good. Look at the Platonic picture in the Republic. The philosopher-kings rule with absolute authority. They do not consult the people; they are not elected by the people; they cannot be removed by the people (p. 169-170)…

Now compare this passage to Judge Robert Dierker's description of our homegrown Tyranny of Tolerance:

“The ongoing judicial assault on traditional marriage and family revels the liberals’ (Cultural Marxists and global elitists) contempt for everything but their own power. That contempt was perfectly expressed in Justice Anthony Kennedy’s penultimate remarks in Lawrence v. Texas:

'Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty, in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.'

Well, if the Founding Fathers did not know what liberty was, they certainly knew what liberty was not. It was not licentiousness. Nor was it “tolerance.” And it certainly was not judicial autocracy, masquerading as enforcement of the Constitution, which was designed to preserve and protect liberty.

In other words, it was not slavery to the whims of five judges who fancy themselves philosopher kings---or queens. Justice Kennedy’s remarks expose the attitude of the illiberal liberals for all to see: The language of the Constitution, the intent of the founding framers and ratifiers, the traditions and usages of our people over unbroken generations—all are irrelevant.

Every generation of judges is entitled to rewrite the Constitution to suit themselves, as long as those judges is entitled to rewrite the Constitution to suit themselves, as long as those judges include five Supreme Court justices. In effect, then, we have no Constitution. Nor do we have a democracy, for the people cannot work their will through the ballot box on any issue that liberal judges decide to write into “their” Constitution. The tyranny of tolerance is complete...(p. 68).”

As another example, look at the groundwork being laid for the North American Union, which is happening without full coverage and debate that the people of the United States, Canada, and Mexico are legally entitled to:

Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America
Report to Leaders
June 2005

On March 23, 2005, you announced the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America. At that time, you instructed Ministers to create an architecture which would further enhance the security of North America while at the same time promote the economic well-being of our citizens and position North America to face and meet future challenges. This effort builds on the excellent, long-standing relations among our three countries. The response to your request is attached.

In carrying out your instructions, we established working groups under both agendas of the Partnership - Security and Prosperity. We held roundtables with stakeholders, meetings with business groups and briefing sessions with legislatures, as well as with other relevant political jurisdictions. The result is a detailed series of actions and recommendations designed to increase the competitiveness of North America and the security of our people. While the Security and Prosperity agendas were developed by separate teams, we recognize that our economic well-being and our security are not two separate and distinct issues. In that spirit, we have worked together to ensure that the appropriate linkages are made between security and prosperity initiatives.

Upon your review and approval, we will once again meet with stakeholders and work with them to implement the workplans that we have developed. We will also encourage them to continue to provide us with new ideas and proposals which will help shape our forward agenda and our vision for North America..."

The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America has been quite busy; with almost complete media silence on the most important agreement in the history of the United States, Canada, and Mexico.

The people seem not to be "relevant" stakeholders.

The people need not be consulted; our elites know our best interests.

The people need not be informed; our leaders are working for the greater good.

No reports need be made to the people; our "leaders" will decide what is best.

Mr. Hoernlé continues:

“Their rule justifies itself by its supreme efficiency. In detail they rule and are obeyed, because (a) they are “wise”, i.e. they “know” what is good for the State as a whole, and their lives are so organized that they have no other interest than to serve the State in this spirit; (b) they have an armed body of trained fighters at their command to enforce their decisions by force, if need be; and (c) they are willingly obeyed by the rest of the community in that spirit of “sophrosyne” of which loyalty to a leader seems the modern equivalent. It is the function of the philosopher kings in the Ideal State to declare what the welfare of the people requires and to give effect to their judgment by legislation and command. It is the function of the people to obey and to follow. Their consent to particular measures is not asked. For them to think about politics would be to meddle in things beyond their competence (Hoernlé, p. 170)…”

“The philosopher kings and the helpers (the two highest classes in Plato’s State) are roughly the analogon of the modern dictator and the close-knit, disciplined Partei (be it the Communist Party in Russia, the Fascist Party in Italy, or the N.-S. party in Germany) through which the dictator rules (p. 170).”

Need I say more?

Ladies and gentlemen, its a dark road where we are headed; but no matter what, we gotta keep moving!

Next time!

Plato and his influence on feminism, followed by the beginning of my commentary on the actual words and phrases of the Republic itself.

Kumogakure.